Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Relevant product market was identified as use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects and geographic market as India; the Maharashtra-only market pleaded by the appellant was rejected for lack of basis. The respondent authority (MSRDC) was held not to be dominant in the relevant market after assessment of market share and project data, and therefore no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act was found; IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion did not amount to unfair discrimination. No cartelisation or agreement restricting supply was established, no prima facie case required DG investigation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Relevant product market was identified as use of Crystalline Durability Admixture in heavy infrastructure projects and geographic market as India; the Maharashtra-only market pleaded by the appellant was rejected for lack of basis. The respondent authority (MSRDC) was held not to be dominant in the relevant market after assessment of market share and project data, and therefore no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act was found; IRC accreditation as an eligibility criterion did not amount to unfair discrimination. No cartelisation or agreement restricting supply was established, no prima facie case required DG investigation, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.