SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, PRATEEK JALAN
Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited – Appellant
Versus
Competition Commission of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. In all these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter "the Act"). The specific challenge is to provisions of Sections 22(3), 27(b), 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F and 61 ("the impugned provisions" hereafter) of the Act and the notification dated 31.03.2011 amending Regulation 48 (1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (hereafter "the Regulations" and the "impugned amending regulation"); and in relation to the appellate remedies to the Competition Appellate Tribunal ("COMPAT"). Now those functions have been taken over by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereafter "NCLAT") due to provisions of the Finance Act, 2017. Though by amendments, the petitioners have impugned provisions of the Finance Act nevertheless, they do not press it, in view of the order of the Supreme Court in a pending proceeding before it, in respect of the general challenge to the Finance Act, 2017.

2. The genesis to these disputes arose on account of a complaint by one Mr. Shamsher Kataria who filed information under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act against M










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top