https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460437 The Delhi HC dismissed the petitions and all pending applications, refusing the petitioner's request for a stay on the impugned order. The petitioner argued the prior decision in "Cadila Health Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Ors" was erroneous, seeking time to appeal. However, the court found it inappropriate to grant the stay, noting the interim order only clarified actions under Section 43 of the Competition Act, 2002, were subject to further court orders. The order was issued under the signature of the Court Master. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2025 13:30:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460437 The Delhi HC dismissed the petitions and all pending applications, refusing the petitioner's request for a stay on the impugned order. The petitioner argued the prior decision in "Cadila Health Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Ors" was erroneous, seeking time to appeal. However, the court found it inappropriate to grant the stay, noting the interim order only clarified actions under Section 43 of the Competition Act, 2002, were subject to further court orders. The order was issued under the signature of the Court Master. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460437