Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access...
Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation directed.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access via co-location facilities and secondary servers were examined; the competition regulator found no prima facie abuse of dominant position because the informant failed to establish overt anti competitive harm or denial of market access to investors, and evidence submitted by the exchange and sectoral expert reports did not support preferential access claims. The regulator permissibly relied on sectoral regulator findings and expert reports in forming its view and therefore declined to direct an investigation. The appellate review upheld that approach and dismissed the challenge to the regulator's decision.
Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access via co-location facilities and secondary servers were examined; the competition regulator found no prima facie abuse of dominant position because the informant failed to establish overt anti competitive harm or denial of market access to investors, and evidence submitted by the exchange and sectoral expert reports did not support preferential access claims. The regulator permissibly relied on sectoral regulator findings and expert reports in forming its view and therefore declined to direct an investigation. The appellate review upheld that approach and dismissed the challenge to the regulator's decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.