Pan India Infraprojects (P) Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0943 (CCI) : (2018) 148 SCL 0520 IN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA DEVENDER KUMAR SIKRI, CHAIRPERSON SUDHIR MITAL & AUGUSTINE PETER & U.C. NAHTA, MEMBERS Pan India Infraprojects (P) Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) Case No. 91 of 2013 1 June, 2018 *Cases Referred to* Surinder Singh Barmiv. BCCI (2013) 118 SCL 226 (CCI), Dhanraj Pillaiv. Hockey India (Case No. 73 of 2011) and Continental Can Co. Inc. v. Commission of the European Communities (1973) ECR 215. Informant by: Aran Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate, Ravi Sekhar Nair and Krushika Nayan Chpudhary, Advocates ORDER The information in the instant matter was filed by Pan India Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (Earlier known as Essel Sports (P) Ltd.) ('Informant'), in the year 2013, under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, ('Act') against Board of Control for Cricket in India ('BCCI'/'Opposite Party'), alleging contravention of provisions of section 4 of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2018 TaxPub(CL) 0943 (CCI) : (2018) 148 SCL 0520

IN THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

DEVENDER KUMAR SIKRI, CHAIRPERSON SUDHIR MITAL & AUGUSTINE PETER & U.C. NAHTA, MEMBERS

Pan India Infraprojects (P) Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)

Case No. 91 of 2013

1 June, 2018

Cases Referred to

Surinder Singh Barmiv. BCCI (2013) 118 SCL 226 (CCI), Dhanraj Pillaiv. Hockey India (Case No. 73 of 2011) and Continental Can Co. Inc. v. Commission of the European Communities (1973) ECR 215.

Informant by: Aran Kathpalia, Sr. Advocate, Ravi Sekhar Nair and Krushika Nayan Chpudhary, Advocates

ORDER

The information in the instant matter was filed by Pan India Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (Earlier known as Essel Sports (P) Ltd.) ('Informant'), in the year 2013, under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, ('Act') against Board of Control for Cricket in India ('BCCI'/'Opposite Party'), alleging contravention of provisions of section 4 of the Act.