https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257613 Section 26(7) of the Competition Act was treated as a preliminary, inquisitorial stage distinct from the prima facie and report stages, so the Competition Commission was not required to issue notice or hear the enterprise before ordering further investigation. The statutory text was read as confining objections or suggestions at the relevant earlier stage to the informant or referring authority, and Regulation 2(1)(i) could not expand that entitlement. The prior Supreme Court ruling on Section 26(1) was applied by analogy because the further-investigation order did not itself determine rights or impose civil consequences. The enterprise therefore had no right of hearing before the order was passed. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:39:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257613 Section 26(7) of the Competition Act was treated as a preliminary, inquisitorial stage distinct from the prima facie and report stages, so the Competition Commission was not required to issue notice or hear the enterprise before ordering further investigation. The statutory text was read as confining objections or suggestions at the relevant earlier stage to the informant or referring authority, and Regulation 2(1)(i) could not expand that entitlement. The prior Supreme Court ruling on Section 26(1) was applied by analogy because the further-investigation order did not itself determine rights or impose civil consequences. The enterprise therefore had no right of hearing before the order was passed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 03 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257613