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
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.