https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308263 The Competition Commission was held to be a composite regulator with investigative, advisory and quasi-judicial functions, so it is not an exclusively judicial tribunal, and the challenge based on separation of powers and judicial independence largely failed. Section 22(3) was struck down for permitting a casting vote in quasi-judicial adjudication, though the quorum proviso was upheld. The revolving-door participation of members did not invalidate the proceedings, but future final hearings were directed to be heard by a stable membership. Expanded investigation under Section 26(1) and the penalty framework under Section 27(b) and Regulation 48(1) were upheld, with discretion controlled by proportionality and relevant turnover. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jun 2023 08:44:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308263 The Competition Commission was held to be a composite regulator with investigative, advisory and quasi-judicial functions, so it is not an exclusively judicial tribunal, and the challenge based on separation of powers and judicial independence largely failed. Section 22(3) was struck down for permitting a casting vote in quasi-judicial adjudication, though the quorum proviso was upheld. The revolving-door participation of members did not invalidate the proceedings, but future final hearings were directed to be heard by a stable membership. Expanded investigation under Section 26(1) and the penalty framework under Section 27(b) and Regulation 48(1) were upheld, with discretion controlled by proportionality and relevant turnover. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 10 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308263