MANOJ MISRA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Competition Commission Of India – Appellant
Versus
Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of competition act provisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of anti-competitive behavior. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of procedural notices to parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. commission's findings on violations. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments presented by parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. sufficient notice and opportunity of hearing. (Para 15) |
| 7. purpose and framework of the competition act. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. nature of penalties under the act. (Para 24 , 36) |
| 9. details of notice issued under the act. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 10. analysis of penalties and their proportionality. (Para 44 , 50) |
| 11. requirement for explanation of charges, not penalties. (Para 60 , 61) |
| 12. final conclusion and order by the court. (Para 68) |
JUDGMENT :
| A. BRIEF FACTS |
| B. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL |
| C. NOTICE TO PARTIES BY THE COMMISSION |
| D. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COMMISSION AND ORDER |
| E. APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS |
| F. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL |
| G. QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION |
| H. ANALYSIS AND REASONS |
| i. SURVEY OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE |
| ii. ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS |
| iii. COMMISSION CAN DIFFER WITH THE DG |
| iv. NOTICE DATED 10.06.2015 |
| |
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited And Another
Excel Crop Care Limited vs. Competition Commission of India And Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.