https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436623 Section 26(1) investigation directions under the Competition Act operate as prima facie, administrative and inquisitorial triggers and do not determine rights or liabilities. Writ intervention at that stage is ordinarily premature unless a clear jurisdictional defect or comparable illegality exists, because parties may produce evidence, object to the DG report and receive a hearing before the Competition Commission. A broadly framed investigation into alleged paper-industry cartelisation may extend to copier paper revealed during inquiry. Prior delineation of the relevant market is not invariably required for Section 3 proceedings. Refusal of cross-examination does not by itself invalidate a continuing inquiry where rebuttal evidence and objections remain available. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436623 Section 26(1) investigation directions under the Competition Act operate as prima facie, administrative and inquisitorial triggers and do not determine rights or liabilities. Writ intervention at that stage is ordinarily premature unless a clear jurisdictional defect or comparable illegality exists, because parties may produce evidence, object to the DG report and receive a hearing before the Competition Commission. A broadly framed investigation into alleged paper-industry cartelisation may extend to copier paper revealed during inquiry. Prior delineation of the relevant market is not invariably required for Section 3 proceedings. Refusal of cross-examination does not by itself invalidate a continuing inquiry where rebuttal evidence and objections remain available. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436623