https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258139 Penalty under Section 42 of the Competition Act for delayed filing of an undertaking was treated as distinct from any violation of the underlying cease-and-desist direction under Section 27. The text states that the authority was required to assess the nature of the default, absence of gain, lack of prejudice to public interest, mitigating circumstances, and whether the non-compliance was intentional. It further records that these factors were ignored and the daily penalty was found to be shockingly disproportionate, arbitrary and without application of mind, leading to it being set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:52:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258139 Penalty under Section 42 of the Competition Act for delayed filing of an undertaking was treated as distinct from any violation of the underlying cease-and-desist direction under Section 27. The text states that the authority was required to assess the nature of the default, absence of gain, lack of prejudice to public interest, mitigating circumstances, and whether the non-compliance was intentional. It further records that these factors were ignored and the daily penalty was found to be shockingly disproportionate, arbitrary and without application of mind, leading to it being set aside. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258139