https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779151 Under the pre-amendment Competition Act regime, forwarding the Director General's report, inviting replies and granting a hearing was treated as sufficient compliance with natural justice before action under Section 48. The text explains that no separate show-cause notice specifically proposing penalty was considered mandatory where the Commission concurred with the report and proceeded on the same contravention. It further states that the 10.06.2015 notice, which identified the office-bearers, sought replies and financial details, and fixed a hearing, satisfied the statutory hearing requirement. The discussion also notes that the penalty and consequential behavioural directions were presented as proportionate measures tied to the established anti-competitive conduct. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779151 Under the pre-amendment Competition Act regime, forwarding the Director General's report, inviting replies and granting a hearing was treated as sufficient compliance with natural justice before action under Section 48. The text explains that no separate show-cause notice specifically proposing penalty was considered mandatory where the Commission concurred with the report and proceeded on the same contravention. It further states that the 10.06.2015 notice, which identified the office-bearers, sought replies and financial details, and fixed a hearing, satisfied the statutory hearing requirement. The discussion also notes that the penalty and consequential behavioural directions were presented as proportionate measures tied to the established anti-competitive conduct. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779151