https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113148 Writ petitions challenging Competition Commission show-cause notices at the preliminary inquiry stage were held premature because the Commission could determine the jurisdictional facts itself. The dispute whether the alleged conduct concerning film exhibition and release fell within section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, or was protected by section 3(5), was treated as a mixed question of law and fact for the statutory inquiry. Mere issuance of notice after the Director General's report did not amount to a final decision, and the availability of statutory appeal against any adverse final order weighed against extraordinary writ interference. The petitioners were left free to raise all objections before the Commission. en-us Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113148 Writ petitions challenging Competition Commission show-cause notices at the preliminary inquiry stage were held premature because the Commission could determine the jurisdictional facts itself. The dispute whether the alleged conduct concerning film exhibition and release fell within section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, or was protected by section 3(5), was treated as a mixed question of law and fact for the statutory inquiry. Mere issuance of notice after the Director General's report did not amount to a final decision, and the availability of statutory appeal against any adverse final order weighed against extraordinary writ interference. The petitioners were left free to raise all objections before the Commission. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113148