https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377870 The court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's (CMM) jurisdiction to take cognizance of criminal complaints under Section 42(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. It upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) authority to penalize non-compliance with its orders and directions, stating that such actions do not infringe upon the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2). The court determined that any factual disputes concerning the petitioner's responsibilities and non-compliance should be addressed during the trial rather than through pre-trial motions. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 06:42:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377870 The court dismissed the petitions, affirming the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's (CMM) jurisdiction to take cognizance of criminal complaints under Section 42(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. It upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) authority to penalize non-compliance with its orders and directions, stating that such actions do not infringe upon the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2). The court determined that any factual disputes concerning the petitioner's responsibilities and non-compliance should be addressed during the trial rather than through pre-trial motions. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377870