https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758465 The Madras HC addressed a challenge to Competition Commission orders dated 01.11.2019 and 26.08.2020 regarding abuse of dominant position. The court held there was no delay in filing writ petitions as the petitioner received copies of orders only proximate to filing, with the 2020 order supplied only on 01.03.2024. The court found the petitioner's status change from participant to opposite party was procedurally flawed, as proper notice wasn't given before impleadment and no speaking order justified the change. Despite finding procedural violations, the petition was dismissed. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:24:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758465 The Madras HC addressed a challenge to Competition Commission orders dated 01.11.2019 and 26.08.2020 regarding abuse of dominant position. The court held there was no delay in filing writ petitions as the petitioner received copies of orders only proximate to filing, with the 2020 order supplied only on 01.03.2024. The court found the petitioner's status change from participant to opposite party was procedurally flawed, as proper notice wasn't given before impleadment and no speaking order justified the change. Despite finding procedural violations, the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758465