https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357850 A direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is a preliminary, administrative step based on a prima facie opinion and does not finally determine rights or create civil consequences. The Madras HC noted that, although judicial review is available in principle, writ interference is not justified merely because investigation has been ordered. It also held that alleged defects in the reference or supporting material did not vitiate the Commission's power at the prima facie stage, and that prior notice or hearing was not mandatory before issuing the investigation direction. The impugned order directing investigation was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 07:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357850 A direction under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is a preliminary, administrative step based on a prima facie opinion and does not finally determine rights or create civil consequences. The Madras HC noted that, although judicial review is available in principle, writ interference is not justified merely because investigation has been ordered. It also held that alleged defects in the reference or supporting material did not vitiate the Commission's power at the prima facie stage, and that prior notice or hearing was not mandatory before issuing the investigation direction. The impugned order directing investigation was upheld and the writ petition dismissed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357850