https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436623 A Section 26(1) direction to investigate under the Competition Act is a prima facie, administrative trigger that does not determine rights or liabilities, so writ interference at that stage is ordinarily premature unless a clear jurisdictional defect is shown. The note also states that, where allegations concern cartelisation in the paper industry, the investigation may extend to copier paper if the Commission's order is broadly framed and the material reveals wider anti-competitive conduct; prior market delineation is not invariably a mandatory pre-condition. Refusal of cross-examination did not justify quashing because the party could still file rebuttal material and object to the DG report before the Commission. 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 A Section 26(1) direction to investigate under the Competition Act is a prima facie, administrative trigger that does not determine rights or liabilities, so writ interference at that stage is ordinarily premature unless a clear jurisdictional defect is shown. The note also states that, where allegations concern cartelisation in the paper industry, the investigation may extend to copier paper if the Commission's order is broadly framed and the material reveals wider anti-competitive conduct; prior market delineation is not invariably a mandatory pre-condition. Refusal of cross-examination did not justify quashing because the party could still file rebuttal material and object to the DG report before the Commission. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436623