9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LOK SRIVASTAVA MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant: Mr. Subodh Prasad Deo and Ms. Rinki Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Balbir Singh (ASG) with Mr. Balaji Subramanian, Mr. Arav Kapoor and Ms. Ishani Banerjee, Ms. Monica Benjamin, Ms. Surbhi Singh, Advocates for Respondents. Ms. Shama Nargis (Deputy Director Law, CCI) ORDER (Virtual Mode) According to the Learned Counsel for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also held in the impugned order certain Officials of the aforementioned manufacturing companies and the Director General of AIBA, responsible for the aforesaid Anti- Competitive Conduct and imposed monetary penalties upon such officials under the provisions of Section 48 of the Competition Act, 2022(12 of 2003). The real grievance of the Appellant is that it is inflicted with the monetary penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant or any of the Beer manufacturers could enter into any Anti-Competitive Agreement within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant emphatically points out that the Respondent had passed the impugned order in utter disregard of the settled law and provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, as enumerated in detail in the present Appeal filed by the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and on legal plane and is of the earnest opinion that 'contentious issues' have been raised in the instant 'Appeal', which necessarily require a detailed examination, at the time of final hearing of the 'Appeal'. In view of the above, this 'Tribunal' bearing in mind the primordial fact that the Appellant has preferred the 'instant Appeal' being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
