Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Competition law

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Schott India was dominant upstream but the target (volume) rebates and the functional rebate/TMLA were neutral, objectively justified and uniformly available; the LTTSA did not produce a margin squeeze because Schott India did not operate downstream and independent converters remained profitable; NGA and NGC were not shown to be separate tied products and no coercive bundling or foreclosure was established; an effects-based AAEC inquiry is mandatory and the CCI failed to demonstrate appreciable adverse effects; moreover, denial of cross-examination of converter-witnesses was a material proced…

Source excerpt

  • Abuse of dominant position
  • Tying and bundling
  • Margin squeeze
  • Volume/target rebates
  • Functional discounts
  • Effects-based analysis
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy

INDEPENDENT SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. versus GIRISH SRIRAM JUNEJA & ORS.

By a majority (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy for himself and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia) the proviso to section 31(4) IBC is mandatory in effect: where a resolution plan contains a provision for a combination as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, the resolution applicant must obtain CCI approval under the Competition Act prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors; approval of a resolution plan by the CoC in the absence of prior CCI approval in such cases is ineffective and the CoC approval to AGI Greenpac's plan dated 28.10.2022 wa…

Source excerpt

  • Proviso to section 31(4) ibc (prior cci approval)
  • Mandatory vs directory interpretation of statutory provisos
  • Procedure for combinations under the competition act (s.29)
  • Locus standi of unsuccessful resolution applicant
  • Interplay of ibc timelines with competition act timelines
Read case analysis
Competition law

COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANR versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

The Competition Act, 2002 applies to Coal India Limited and its subsidiary: they are "enterprises" under s.2(h) (not engaged in sovereign functions) and a statutory monopoly is a relevant factor under s.19(4)(g); Parliament intended to bring state monopolies, government companies and PSUs within the Act; further, s.28 confers power on CCI to order division notwithstanding other laws, and therefore the Nationalisation Act does not exclude application of the Competition Act, subject to appellants' rights to raise bona fide statutory or policy-based defences (including Presidential Directives) b…

Source excerpt

  • Definition of enterprise
  • Abuse of dominant position
  • State monopoly and nationalisation
  • Directive principles (article 39(b))
  • Conflict between statutes (s.28 v. s.32)
  • Powers of competition commission of india
Read case analysis
Administrative law

SWAMI SAMARTH SUGARS AND AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. versus LOKNETE MARUTRAO GHULE PATIL DNYANESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD & ORS.

The Court held that the period spent by the appellant defending writ petitions challenging the IEM (including the first and second rounds of litigation) was properly excluded when computing the time for taking effective steps under the IEM; that the Central Government validly exercised powers under the Control Order (as amended) to grant extensions; that an IEM does not lapse automatically on expiry of time but only upon forfeiture of the performance guarantee after affording a hearing under Clause 6D; and consequently the High Court order setting aside extensions was unsustainable and was se…

Source excerpt

  • Industrial entrepreneur memorandum (iem) extension
  • Interpretation of sugarcane (control) order, 1966 (clauses 6a, 6c, 6d)
  • Aerial distance certificate
  • Forfeiture of bank guarantee and de-recognition of iem
  • Judicial review of executive decisions
  • Exclusion of litigation period from regulatory timelines
Read case analysis
Company law

FUTURE COUPONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. versus AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC & ORS

Given that the NCLT proceedings were at an advanced stage (up to stage no.8), that the applicant had incurred expenditure and faced a real risk of insolvency and harm to employees, the Court granted FRL liberty to approach the Delhi High Court to seek continuation of the NCLT proceedings beyond stage no.8 and directed the High Court to consider the contentions of both parties and pass appropriate orders expeditiously and uninfluenced by any observations of this Court.

Source excerpt

  • Scheme of arrangement (companies act)
  • Emergency arbitrator award enforcement
  • Interim injunctions
  • Continuation of nclt proceedings
  • Regulatory approvals (cci, sebi)
Read case analysis
Competition law

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.

The Competition Commission has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of anti-competitive conduct (including cartelisation and bid rigging) in the tendering process for appointment of lottery distributors and selling agents despite lotteries being a regulated activity or regarded as res extra commercium; the High Court’s interlocutory intervention to stay the CCI’s investigative process was premature and unsustainable, and the CCI’s investigative process against the private parties must be allowed to continue (with the proceedings against the State closed insofar as CCI had indicated it wou…

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of competition commission
  • Bid rigging
  • Cartelisation
  • Res extra commercium
  • Definition of "service" under competition act
  • Interplay between competition act and lotteries (regulation) act
Read case analysis
Competition law

SAMIR AGRAWAL versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that under the Competition Act, 2002 and the 2009 Regulations any person may provide information to the CCI and that the NCLAT's narrow construction of locus standi under section 19 was incorrect; however, on the merits the concurrent findings of CCI and NCLAT that there was no contravention of section 3 by Ola and Uber (no agreement/meeting of minds/cartelisation among drivers) were reasonable and not interfered with, and the appeal was disposed accordingly.

Source excerpt

  • Locus standi
  • S.19 receipt of information
  • S.26 inquiry procedure
  • S.3 anti-competitive agreements
  • In rem proceedings
  • Confidentiality of informant
Read case analysis
Competition act, 2002

UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that the statement showing a net loss of Rs.204 per trip constituted sufficient material to establish a prima facie case under Section 26(1) for infringement of Section 4 (abuse of dominant position, including predatory pricing), upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order, dismissed the appeals, and directed the Director General to complete the investigation within six months.

Source excerpt

  • Abuse of dominant position
  • Predatory pricing
  • Investigation under section 26(1)
Read case analysis
Competition law

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA versus BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

TRAI, as the sectoral expert regulator, must first decide technical and contractual issues in the telecom sector. Only after TRAI finds an anti-competitive practice can the CCI initiate investigation. The CCI's order under Section 26(1) was premature, and the High Court was correct in quashing it on jurisdictional grounds, but should not have entered into merits.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of regulators
  • Anti-competitive practices
  • Writ petition maintainability
  • Role of trai and cci
  • Prima facie investigation orders
  • Judicial review
Read case analysis
Competition law

RAJASTHAN CYLINDERS AND CONTAINERS LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

There is no sufficient evidence to hold that there was any agreement between the appellants for bid rigging; the presumption of anti-competitive conduct was rebutted by appellants through market explanations, and CCI failed to carry out necessary further inquiry; thus, penalty is not payable and CCI's appeals are rendered infructuous.

Source excerpt

  • Cartelisation
  • Bid-rigging
  • Collusive bidding
  • Oligopsony
  • Tender process
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.