Anti-Competitive Agreements

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Competition Commission in Lottery Tender Case: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. (2022) INSC 31

/ Anti-Competitive Agreements, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 3, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 4, Definition of Goods, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 2(7), Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Competition Commission in Lottery Tender Case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of bid rigging and cartelization in the tender process for appointment of lottery distributors, specifically when lotteries are considered ‘res extra commercium’. CASE TYPE: Competition Law, Tender Process, Lottery Regulation […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Competition Commission in Lottery Tender Case: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. (2022) INSC 31 Read Post »

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022)

/ Anti-Competitive Agreements, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 3, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 4, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Competition Act, 2002 applies to the tendering process for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents, specifically concerning allegations of bid rigging and cartelization. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Competition Commission of

Supreme Court on Competition Act Applicability to Lottery Tenders: Competition Commission of India vs. State of Mizoram (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds CCI Decision on Ola and Uber Pricing: Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India (2020)

/ Anti-Competitive Agreements, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 19, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 3, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Krishna Murari, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds CCI Decision on Ola and Uber Pricing: Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the pricing algorithms used by Ola and Uber constitute price-fixing and anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act, 2002. CASE TYPE: Competition Law Case Name: Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds CCI Decision on Ola and Uber Pricing: Samir Agrawal vs. Competition Commission of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in telecom sector disputes (05 December 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Anti-Competitive Agreements, Ashok Bhushan, Competition Act, 2002, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 19, Competition Act, 2002 with Section 3, Functions of TRAI, Judges, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 with Section 11

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of CCI and TRAI in Telecom Sector Disputes Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 1071 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. Can the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiate an investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices in the telecom sector, or is this the exclusive domain of

Supreme Court clarifies the jurisdiction of Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in telecom sector disputes (05 December 2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top