<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (6) TMI 1563 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468978</link>
    <description>A combination notice must disclose the true substance of all inter-connected steps and material documents, and incomplete disclosure of a transaction&#039;s real commercial purpose may amount to suppression or misrepresentation. On that basis, the competition regulator&#039;s finding of false disclosure and non-notification was sustained, along with the direction to file a fresh Form II and keep the earlier approval in abeyance. The one-year limitation argument was rejected because the matter was treated as incomplete notification rather than a properly notified combination. Stakeholder appeals were also held maintainable because competition proceedings are proceedings in rem and the expression &quot;person aggrieved&quot; was construed broadly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 18:32:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1563 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468978</link>
      <description>A combination notice must disclose the true substance of all inter-connected steps and material documents, and incomplete disclosure of a transaction&#039;s real commercial purpose may amount to suppression or misrepresentation. On that basis, the competition regulator&#039;s finding of false disclosure and non-notification was sustained, along with the direction to file a fresh Form II and keep the earlier approval in abeyance. The one-year limitation argument was rejected because the matter was treated as incomplete notification rather than a properly notified combination. Stakeholder appeals were also held maintainable because competition proceedings are proceedings in rem and the expression &quot;person aggrieved&quot; was construed broadly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>