Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 DECEMBER 2024

JSA Newsletter | Competition Law | November 2024

JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Contributor
JSA Advocates & Solicitors

JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Established in 1991 Our services: JSA is a leading law firm in India with more than 600...

View firm profile
Explore more from JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Punjab and Haryana High Court ("P&H HC") granted an interim stay on the proceedings initiated by Competition Commission of India ("CCI") against Savan Retailers Private Limited ("Savan Retail").

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Vaibhav Choukse
Vaibhav Choukse
Ela Bali
Ela Bali
Aditi Khanna
Aditi Khanna
Prashasti Srivastav
Prashasti Srivastav
Author LinkedIn connections

High Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court stays Competition Commission of India's investigation against Savan Retailers Private Limited

Punjab and Haryana High Court ("P&H HC") granted an interim stay on the proceedings initiated by Competition Commission of India ("CCI") against Savan Retailers Private Limited ("Savan Retail").

In January 2020, CCI directed Director General ("DG") to initiate an investigation against Amazon and Flipkart for alleged contravention of Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, 2002 ("Competition Act") (referred to as the "Prima Facie Order"). As part of the investigation, DG issued notices to the sellers of Amazon and Flipkart including Savan Retail seeking information from them as 'third parties'. However, in August 2024, CCI issued an order ("CCI Order") forwarding a copy of non-confidential version of the investigation report to Amazon, Flipkart, and their respective sellers. CCI further reclassified these sellers, including

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

An Update On India’s Proposed Digital Competition Law

India’s proposed Digital Competition Law has evolved through several stages, from the 2022 Parliamentary Committee report and the 2024 Committee on Digital Competition Law’s draft Bill, through a 2025 government reconsideration, to renewed Parliamentary backing for an ex-ante framework in August 2026. Drawing on comparative experience from the EU, UK, and Japan, this article argues that legislative reform must be matched by a strengthened Competition Commission of India if ex-ante regulation is to work in practice.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Article

Competition Law Updates August 2026

On 13 July 2026, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed penalties exceeding ₹142 crore on HP India and several reselers under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) for cartelisation and bid rigging in the sale and supply of HP personal system products, including laptops, desktops, workstations and accessories (Computers Case), and ink and toner cartridges (Cartridges Case). The orders arose from lesser penalty applications filed by HP India under Section 46 of the Competition Act read with the CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

The Supreme Court Of India Clarifies: Order II Rule 2 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(D) Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

A two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in S. Valliammai and Ors. vs. S. Ramanathan and Anr. recently held that Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between the two provisions clarifying that while Order II Rule 2 curtails the right to sue for certain claims or reliefs, but it does not bar filing of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies That Compromise Decrees Asserting Pre-existing Rights Are Not Subject To Registration Or Payment Of Stamp Duty

In the recent case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the issue of whether compromise decrees that assert pre-existing rights necessitate registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and are subject to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Services Sector Employment Rules Take Shape: Model Standing Orders, 2026 Under The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

On May 8, 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Model Standing Orders, 2026 (“Model Standing Orders 2026”) under Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”). The notification supersedes the earlier Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 insofar as they related to model standing orders, and prescribes separate model standing orders for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors.
IndiaEmployment and HR
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors