https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89249 SC interprets Sections 29(1) and 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002, clarifying the discretionary powers of the Competition Commission. The Court distinguishes between the mandatory nature of "shall" in Section 29(1) and the discretionary "may" in Section 29(1A), emphasizing the Commission's expert discretion in determining whether to initiate a detailed investigation after issuing a show cause notice. The judgment reaffirms that the Commission retains flexibility in deciding the investigative process, rejecting a rigid two-phase mechanism. The review petition challenging the majority judgment's interpretation is ultimately allowed, with the Court providing critical clarification on the statutory provisions' scope and application. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:43:13 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:43:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89249 SC interprets Sections 29(1) and 29(1A) of the Competition Act, 2002, clarifying the discretionary powers of the Competition Commission. The Court distinguishes between the mandatory nature of "shall" in Section 29(1) and the discretionary "may" in Section 29(1A), emphasizing the Commission's expert discretion in determining whether to initiate a detailed investigation after issuing a show cause notice. The judgment reaffirms that the Commission retains flexibility in deciding the investigative process, rejecting a rigid two-phase mechanism. The review petition challenging the majority judgment's interpretation is ultimately allowed, with the Court providing critical clarification on the statutory provisions' scope and application. Highlights Law of Competition Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:43:13 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89249