https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294427 Writ petitions challenging a competition regulator's order and consequential notices were held maintainable before the Bombay High Court, with territorial jurisdiction found because part of the cause of action arose in Maharashtra and the order had civil consequences. The Court further held that telecom interconnection disputes involving licence terms, interconnection agreements, quality of service obligations, test phase requirements, and subscriber demand belonged within the telecom regulatory framework. Because the Commission had acted on unsettled sectoral questions and could not displace the sectoral authority's role at the prima facie stage, it was found to have acted without jurisdiction under the competition law, and the investigation direction and DG notices were quashed. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:45:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294427 Writ petitions challenging a competition regulator's order and consequential notices were held maintainable before the Bombay High Court, with territorial jurisdiction found because part of the cause of action arose in Maharashtra and the order had civil consequences. The Court further held that telecom interconnection disputes involving licence terms, interconnection agreements, quality of service obligations, test phase requirements, and subscriber demand belonged within the telecom regulatory framework. Because the Commission had acted on unsettled sectoral questions and could not displace the sectoral authority's role at the prima facie stage, it was found to have acted without jurisdiction under the competition law, and the investigation direction and DG notices were quashed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 21 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294427