<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (2) TMI 1410 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457163</link>
    <description>In quasi-judicial competition proceedings, if the Commission departs from the Director General&#039;s market definition on a material issue, it must give the affected party notice and a fair opportunity to respond; the relevant market finding was set aside for breach of audi alteram partem. Material relied on against the noticee that was not part of the Director General&#039;s report had to be disclosed, and newspaper or internet-derived material was not proof of the facts stated unless independently proved; the abuse of dominance finding was set aside. A clause not specifically put to the appellant in the inquiry could not form the basis of an adverse discussion or direction, and that part was also set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2024 20:02:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1410 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457163</link>
      <description>In quasi-judicial competition proceedings, if the Commission departs from the Director General&#039;s market definition on a material issue, it must give the affected party notice and a fair opportunity to respond; the relevant market finding was set aside for breach of audi alteram partem. Material relied on against the noticee that was not part of the Director General&#039;s report had to be disclosed, and newspaper or internet-derived material was not proof of the facts stated unless independently proved; the abuse of dominance finding was set aside. A clause not specifically put to the appellant in the inquiry could not form the basis of an adverse discussion or direction, and that part was also set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>