Read all latest corporate law news, articles, notifications & circular on Taxguru.in. News on laws related to DIPP Labour Minimum Wages Gratuity PF Arbitration Negotiable instrument Essential Commodities SRFAESI Competition Act Corporate Law
Corporate Law : The initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Sections 7-10 of the IBC involves different creditors and p...
Corporate Law : Analysis of 1989 economic policy debate between Nani Palkhivala and Madhu Dandavate, examining globalization's impact on India's s...
Corporate Law : SC rules that directors cannot face Section 138 NI Act cases if the cause of action arises after insolvency proceedings begin unde...
Corporate Law : Understand the role of IP clauses in commercial contracts, covering ownership, licensing, and legal considerations to prevent disp...
Corporate Law : IBBI mandates detailed disclosure of carry-forward losses in insolvency cases, improving transparency for resolution applicants un...
Corporate Law : CAIT urges the government to block FDI-backed e-commerce firms from controlling inventory, citing threats to 8 crore Kirana MSMEs ...
Corporate Law : The government has no plans to revise the ₹5,000 tax limit for preventive health check-ups. AI-based health initiatives focus on...
Corporate Law : To combat online financial fraud, RBI has launched an AI-based tool, ‘MuleHunter,’ to identify money mules and has advised fin...
Corporate Law : Update on CCI's order regarding WhatsApp and Meta's data sharing. NCLAT's interim stay and government measures to prevent data mis...
Corporate Law : Overview of IBC 2016's impact, amendments, and government's stance on further changes, including flat registration in insolvency c...
Corporate Law : Competition Commission of India dismisses allegations of monopoly against Delhi airport operators, citing lack of prima facie evi...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling, upholds e-auction sale under SARFAESI Act. Bank directed to return surplus funds to bor...
Corporate Law : SC quashes Punjab HC order dismissing plea under CrPC 482. Case remitted to Sessions Court for re-examination of deposit requireme...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies scope of Section 143A of NI Act, holding interim compensation as discretionary, not mandatory, in cheque bounce cases...
Corporate Law : Mere exchange of draft MoUs or discussions on WhatsApp does not amount to a binding contract, especially when a formal agreement r...
Corporate Law : FSSAI waives registration fees for Anganwadi (ICDS) Centers, introduces a new Kind of Business (KoB), and grants five-year registr...
Corporate Law : PFRDA has issued regulations for the Unified Pension Scheme under NPS, applicable to Central Government employees from April 1, 20...
Corporate Law : IRDAI reconstitutes its Insurance Advisory Committee, appointing five new members. The notification takes effect from its publicat...
Corporate Law : IBBI mandates detailed disclosure of carry forward losses in the Information Memorandum (IM) to enhance transparency in corporate ...
Corporate Law : FSSAI directs FBOs to update Form IX nominee details and enables auto-approval for Non-Form C modifications in FoSCoS from Februar...
The license granted by the Authority may be cancelled by the Authority where the surveyor and loss assessor does not represent within a period of 45 days from the date of order of suspension.
Next issue to be considered is whether there was prima facie abuse of dominant position by OP. Section 4 of the Competition Act provides that there shall be an abuse of a dominant position, if an enterprise directly and indirectly discriminates in providing services to the customers or restricts technical development relating to services to the prejudice of the customers (section 4(2)(b)(i), section 4(2)(b) (ii)) or indulges in practice resulting in denial of market access in any manner to a customer (section 4(2)(c)).The installation of people’s meter by opposite party only in cities catches mood of urban viewers and gives a distorted picture of the viewership PAN India.
Commission has no jurisdiction to hand over the possession of plot in question to the complainant; that is the task of the Civil Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the closest term has restrained to this Commission from assuming the power of the Civil Court. It is also clarified in the paragraph that this Court cannot grant any specific performance.
There cannot be any dispute that Karanataka High Court has specifically held that the provisions of the MRTP Act were not and could not be applicable to the educational institutions. There is no dispute that the present complaint also pertains to the educational institution and its activity of imparting education.
It has been decided to declare Sunday, the 14th April 2013, as a Closed Holiday on account of the birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, for all Central Government Offices including Industrial Establishments throughout India.
The explanation to section 4 of the Act defines dominant position to mean a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in the relevant market in India which enables it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. On examining the dominant position of the OP, it was seen that the OP had no legal existence in India and did not engage in any business in India. Further, the relevant market was fragmented with many players engaging in the activity of production/ manufacture of ARV drugs in India. Accordingly, the OP was not a dominant player in the relevant market in India and therefore, no abuse as envisaged under section 4 of the Act could exist.
Absence of an appeal does not necessarily render the legislation unreasonable as only because no appeal is provided under the Act against the order passed under section 14 of the Securitisation Act will not render section 14 ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.
The Regulations now do not require a notice to be filed for acquisition of shares or voting rights of companies if the acquisition is less than five percent of the shares or voting rights of the company in a financial year, where the acquirer already holds more than twenty five percent but less than fifty percent of the shares or voting rights of the company.
In the present case, indisputably all the participating opposite parties i.e. 28 Part-I firms and 1 Part-II firm quoted an all-inclusive rate of Rs. 66.50 each for the supply of the tendered material. Further, the quantity quoted by the each of the bidders was less than 50% of the total quantity. These facts have not been denied or disputed by any of these opposite parties. Coupled with the facts that the bid documents containing same handwriting, same format with common omissions and commissions of language, past conduct etc., it is safe to infer that such conduct is reflective of meeting of minds or concerted action to establish that the firms have directly or indirectly tried to determine or influence the price of the tender/ project.
Instances have come to notice wherein a few PSUs/Departments have approached Tribunals/Courts to re-open the cases in which permission to litigate was denied by CoD. In a few cases, Public Sector Undertakings/Departments have filed petitions in the High Courts. In an isolated case, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has also been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an organisation against the High Court decision seeking clarification of the Order dated 17.2.2011 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, although the High Court had declined to re-open the case.
