https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772488 Section 29(1) and Section 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002 were construed to mean that a Director-General investigation is not mandatorily required in every case after a show cause notice; the use of permissive language preserves the Competition Commission's discretion, and the earlier contrary reading was replaced. On the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the review challenge to the interpretation of Section 31(4) was held to seek re-argument on merits rather than disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, so review was not entertained on that ground. The earlier directions were otherwise maintained, with consequential steps for further action. en-us Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 12:27:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772488 Section 29(1) and Section 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002 were construed to mean that a Director-General investigation is not mandatorily required in every case after a show cause notice; the use of permissive language preserves the Competition Commission's discretion, and the earlier contrary reading was replaced. On the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the review challenge to the interpretation of Section 31(4) was held to seek re-argument on merits rather than disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, so review was not entertained on that ground. The earlier directions were otherwise maintained, with consequential steps for further action. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772488