The case involves a review petition filed against a judgment concerning Section 29 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) sought a review of the majority judgment, arguing that it curtailed the CCI's jurisdiction and discretion in scrutinizing combinations under the Competition Act. The original judgment allegedly misinterpreted Section 29, particularly regarding the issuance of show cause notices (SCNs) and the process of investigation by the Director-General (DG). The CCI contended that the judgment imposed a mandatory interpretation on provisions that should allow for discretion, potentially rendering certain provisions of the Act unworkable.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) filed a review petition against a judgment that interpreted Section 29 of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI argued that the judgment mandated a full-fledged investigation upon the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 29(1), thereby curtailing the CCI's discretion. The CCI contended that the judgment disrupted established jurisdictional practices and undermined its discretionary powers in approving combinations expeditiously while safeguarding market competition. The original judgment emphasized a literal interpretation of Section 29, potentially rendering certain provisions of the Act unworkable. AGI Greenpac Limited also filed a review petition against the same judgment. Independent Sugar Corporation Limited
…Sign in to view the parties.
The review petition claims the judgment…
Competition Commission of India/Appellant in…
The case involves a review petition filed against a judgment concerning Section 29 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) sought a review of the majority judgment, arguing that it curtailed the CCI's jurisdiction and discretion in scrutinizing combinations under the Competition Act. The original judgment allegedly misinterpreted Section 29, particularly regarding the issuance of show cause notices (SCNs) and the process of investigation by the Director-General (DG). The CCI contended that the judgment imposed a mandatory interpretation on provisions that should allow for discretion, potentially rendering certain provisions of the Act unworkable.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) filed a review petition against a judgment that interpreted Section 29 of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI argued that the judgment mandated a full-fledged investigation upon the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) under Section 29(1), thereby curtailing the CCI's discretion. The CCI contended that the judgment disrupted established jurisdictional practices and undermined its discretionary powers in approving combinations expeditiously while safeguarding market competition. The original judgment emphasized a literal interpretation of Section 29, potentially rendering certain provisions of the Act unworkable. AGI Greenpac Limited also filed a review petition against the same judgment. Independent Sugar Corporation Limited
…The review petition claims the judgment…
Competition Commission of India/Appellant in…