https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370508 The Commission concluded that certain chemists and druggists associations and pharmaceutical companies engaged in anti-competitive practices by requiring a No-Objection Certificate for stockist appointments, violating the Competition Act, 2002. Monetary penalties were imposed on associations and companies, with individual liabilities established under Section 48. Proceedings under Section 43 were dropped after compliance, but penalties were still imposed. Penalties were reduced for some individuals due to mitigating circumstances. Several pharmaceutical companies were removed from proceedings due to lack of evidence. All penalties are to be paid within 60 days, reinforcing the Commission's stance against anti-competitive conduct. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:39:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370508 The Commission concluded that certain chemists and druggists associations and pharmaceutical companies engaged in anti-competitive practices by requiring a No-Objection Certificate for stockist appointments, violating the Competition Act, 2002. Monetary penalties were imposed on associations and companies, with individual liabilities established under Section 48. Proceedings under Section 43 were dropped after compliance, but penalties were still imposed. Penalties were reduced for some individuals due to mitigating circumstances. Several pharmaceutical companies were removed from proceedings due to lack of evidence. All penalties are to be paid within 60 days, reinforcing the Commission's stance against anti-competitive conduct. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370508