Library Catalogue
Role of competition commission of India in prohibiting abuse of dominant position
Publication details: BangaloreBangalore NLSIU 2013Description: 93 p. ; 25 cmOnline resources:
Contents:
Table of Contents a. Title Page; b. Declaration; c. Certificate; d. Acknowledgement; e. Table of Contents; I. List of Cases; II. Abstract; III. List of Abbreviations; IV. Research Methodology; V. Introduction; 1.A.1. Backcloth of Indian Competition law; 1.A.1.i. Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 27; 1.A.1.ii. Constitutional Directives; 1.A.1.iii. P.C. Maholanobis Committee, 1960; 1.A.1.iv. Monopolies Inquiry Commission (MIC), 1964; 1.A.1.v. Managing Agency Inquiry Committee, 1966; 1.A.1. vi. Dr. R. K. Hazari Committee, 1966; 1.A.1.vii. Industrial Licensing Enquiry Policy Committee; 1.A.1.viii. MRTP Act, 1969; 1.A.1.ix. Rajinder Sachar Committee, June 1977; 1.A.1 .x. Industrial Policy Statements (1977-1991; 1.A.1.xi. Industrial policy Statements, 1991; 1.A.1.xii. Establishment of WTO & Singapore Ministerial Conference (1995-96); 1.A.1.xiii. SV.S Raghavan Committee, 1999; 1.A.1.xiv. Competition Bill, 2001; 1.A.1.xv. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee, 93rd Report; 1.A.1.xvi. Competition Act, 2002; 1.A.1.xvii. Delay in enforcement of Competition Act, 2002; II. Conceptual Contours of Abuse of Dominant position; I LA. Competition; II.B. Competition Commission; II .C. Abuse of Dominant Position; II.D. Predatory Pricing; II.E. Relevant Market; III. Legal Position In India and Other Countries in Prohibiting Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AI India; 1I1.1.AII Consumer Protection Act, 1986; 1II.1.AIII Prohibition on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AIV Things Required to be Proved; 1II.1 .AV Factors to Determine Dominance; a. Republic of Germany; b. European Union; c. United Kingdom; d. Australia; e. United States of America; f. South Africa; 1II.1.AVI Meaning of Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AVIl Consequences of Abuse of Dominance; 1II.1.AVIII Remedies; a. Division of Enterprise; b. Interim Relief; c. Comparison; 1II.1.AIX EU Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AX U.K. Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXI Germany Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXIl Australia Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXIII U.S. Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXIV Comments; 1II.1.AXV Determination of Relevant Market; 1II.1.AXVI Determination of Dominance; 1II.1.AXVIl Indicators of dominance; 1II.1.AXVIIIPresumption of Dominance; 1II.1.AXIX Meaning of Abuse; 1II.1.AXX Exemptions to Abuse of Dominance; 1II.1.AXXI What's next [ Inquiry, Orders, Penalties]; a. U.K; b. Germany; c. India; d. South Africa; e. Australia; f. U.S.; IV. Conclusion and Observation; V. Bibliography.
| Item type | Current library | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Dissertation
|
. | Not for loan | LLM425 |
Table of Contents a. Title Page; b. Declaration; c. Certificate; d. Acknowledgement; e. Table of Contents; I. List of Cases; II. Abstract; III. List of Abbreviations; IV. Research Methodology; V. Introduction; 1.A.1. Backcloth of Indian Competition law; 1.A.1.i. Indian Contract Act, 1872, section 27; 1.A.1.ii. Constitutional Directives; 1.A.1.iii. P.C. Maholanobis Committee, 1960; 1.A.1.iv. Monopolies Inquiry Commission (MIC), 1964; 1.A.1.v. Managing Agency Inquiry Committee, 1966; 1.A.1. vi. Dr. R. K. Hazari Committee, 1966; 1.A.1.vii. Industrial Licensing Enquiry Policy Committee; 1.A.1.viii. MRTP Act, 1969; 1.A.1.ix. Rajinder Sachar Committee, June 1977; 1.A.1 .x. Industrial Policy Statements (1977-1991; 1.A.1.xi. Industrial policy Statements, 1991; 1.A.1.xii. Establishment of WTO & Singapore Ministerial Conference (1995-96); 1.A.1.xiii. SV.S Raghavan Committee, 1999; 1.A.1.xiv. Competition Bill, 2001; 1.A.1.xv. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee, 93rd Report; 1.A.1.xvi. Competition Act, 2002; 1.A.1.xvii. Delay in enforcement of Competition Act, 2002; II. Conceptual Contours of Abuse of Dominant position; I LA. Competition; II.B. Competition Commission; II .C. Abuse of Dominant Position; II.D. Predatory Pricing; II.E. Relevant Market; III. Legal Position In India and Other Countries in Prohibiting Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AI India; 1I1.1.AII Consumer Protection Act, 1986; 1II.1.AIII Prohibition on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AIV Things Required to be Proved; 1II.1 .AV Factors to Determine Dominance; a. Republic of Germany; b. European Union; c. United Kingdom; d. Australia; e. United States of America; f. South Africa; 1II.1.AVI Meaning of Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AVIl Consequences of Abuse of Dominance; 1II.1.AVIII Remedies; a. Division of Enterprise; b. Interim Relief; c. Comparison; 1II.1.AIX EU Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AX U.K. Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXI Germany Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXIl Australia Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXIII U.S. Law on Abuse of Dominant Position; 1II.1.AXIV Comments; 1II.1.AXV Determination of Relevant Market; 1II.1.AXVI Determination of Dominance; 1II.1.AXVIl Indicators of dominance; 1II.1.AXVIIIPresumption of Dominance; 1II.1.AXIX Meaning of Abuse; 1II.1.AXX Exemptions to Abuse of Dominance; 1II.1.AXXI What's next [ Inquiry, Orders, Penalties]; a. U.K; b. Germany; c. India; d. South Africa; e. Australia; f. U.S.; IV. Conclusion and Observation; V. Bibliography.