https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367108 A prima facie direction under section 26(1) permits a broad inquiry into the matter and can extend to persons and facts discovered during investigation, so the challenge to the Director General's jurisdiction failed. Refusal to recall the prima facie order on allegations of fraud, mala fides and res judicata was upheld because those claims raised disputed questions requiring merits examination before the Commission. The denial of cross-examination was set aside because discretion under Regulation 41(5) must be exercised on relevant judicial grounds, and evidence cannot be rejected merely because it was said not to be relied upon. Notice to officers under section 48 before a final finding against the company was sustained, as the provision allows vicarious-liability proceedings in the same inquiry. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:38:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367108 A prima facie direction under section 26(1) permits a broad inquiry into the matter and can extend to persons and facts discovered during investigation, so the challenge to the Director General's jurisdiction failed. Refusal to recall the prima facie order on allegations of fraud, mala fides and res judicata was upheld because those claims raised disputed questions requiring merits examination before the Commission. The denial of cross-examination was set aside because discretion under Regulation 41(5) must be exercised on relevant judicial grounds, and evidence cannot be rejected merely because it was said not to be relied upon. Notice to officers under section 48 before a final finding against the company was sustained, as the provision allows vicarious-liability proceedings in the same inquiry. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367108