{"id":274858,"date":"2022-10-01T16:30:40","date_gmt":"2022-10-01T11:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=274858"},"modified":"2022-10-01T16:30:40","modified_gmt":"2022-10-01T11:00:40","slug":"union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/","title":{"rendered":"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Preamble<\/h4>\n

The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a>1<\/sup><\/a> was amended in 20152<\/sup><\/a> and was brought into force from 2014. The said Amendment Act reads as under:<\/p>\n

2. Definitions. —<\/i><\/b> In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, — * * *<\/p>\n

(13) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on a salary or wage not exceeding [twenty-one thousand rupees] per mensem in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical, or clerical work of hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied;3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

12. Calculation of bonus with respect to certain employees. —<\/i><\/b> Where the salary or wage of an employee exceeds [seven thousand rupees or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment<\/i>, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher] per mensem, the bonus payable to such employee under Section 104<\/sup><\/a> or, as the case may be, under Section 115<\/sup><\/a>, shall be calculated as if his salary or wage were [seven thousand rupees or the minimum wage for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever is higher<\/i>] per mensem<\/p>\n

Explanation. —<\/i> For the purposes of this section, the expression “scheduled employment” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (g<\/i>) of Section 26<\/sup><\/a> of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948<\/a> (11 of 1948)7<\/sup><\/a>. (emphasis supplied)<\/span><\/p>\n

By virtue of the abovesaid Amendment Act, three important changes were made to the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a> which read as follows:<\/p>\n

(1) Section 2(13) was amended to increase the salary limit from Rs 10,000 to Rs 21,000 per month for the purpose of coverage under the Act.<\/p>\n

(2) Section 12 was amended to increase the wage ceiling for calculating the bonus from Rs 3500 to Rs 7000 per month or the minimum wages for the scheduled employment as fixed by the appropriate Government, whichever be the higher.<\/p>\n

(3) An Explanation to Section 12 was provided to clarify that the expression “scheduled employment” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (g<\/i>) of Section 2<\/a> of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948<\/a>.<\/p>\n

(4) These amendments were given retrospective effect in Section 1 of the Amendment Act of 2015 by providing that it shall be deemed to have come into force on 1-4-2014.<\/p>\n

Developments from 2015 onwards<\/h4>\n

The abovesaid amendments were challenged in various High Courts by way of writ petitions mainly on two counts, namely, (i<\/i>) the retrospective effect given to the Amendment Act, 2015; and (ii<\/i>) the legal validity of linking the minimum wages in calculating the bonus under the Act. Writ petitions were admitted by various High Courts and stay orders were granted by the High Courts.<\/p>\n

Against this backdrop, the Union Government sought transfer of all the pending writ petitions to the Supreme Court in 2016 itself. The Supreme Court on 11-7-2022, in Union of India<\/i> v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India<\/i>8<\/sup><\/a>, after six years, disposed of the transfer petitions by transferring the writs back to the respective High Courts and also vacating the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court, by anchoring mainly on the following case laws:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Union of India<\/i> v. Cummins Technologies India (P) Ltd.<\/i>9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Institute of Chartered Accountants of India<\/i> v. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd.<\/i>10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Supreme Court has strongly relied on the decision in Cummins Technologies case<\/i>11<\/sup><\/a> wherein the prayer for transferring the cases to the Supreme Court was refused by the Supreme Court and it has not accepted the argument that the same issue was pending in various High Courts which would have implications on large number of matters.<\/p>\n

    In the event of transfer of matters to the Supreme Court, the parties would lose their right of appeal against the final judgment of the High Court.<\/p>\n

    On linkage of qualifying wages to minimum wages in terms of the amended Section 12, the wages prescribed by different States shall have different implications and as such it would be appropriate if the pending writ petitions are considered by the respective High Courts in light of the particular provisions operating in each State relating to minimum wages rather than bringing all such cases before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

    It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court has erred on the side of caution. This decision raises the following observations:<\/p>\n

    (1) The transfer petitions were pending before the Supreme Court for the past six years for its decision on the substantial questions of law concerning the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>. However, the decision pertaining to transfer these matters to the Supreme Court has been decided only now. Though the Supreme Court has transferred the said matters back to the respective High Courts with a direction to proceed with the matters expeditiously, it has not given any timeline to dispose of the said matters.<\/p>\n

    (2) It is pertinent to note that the decision in Cummins Technologies case<\/i>12<\/sup><\/a> was filed in the Supreme Court in the year 2020 and the same was disposed of in 2021 itself.<\/p>\n

    (3) The reasoning that the wages prescribed by different States shall have different implications and as such it would be appropriate if the pending writ petitions are considered by the respective High Courts in light of the particular provisions operating in each State relating to minimum wages rather than bringing all such cases before the Supreme Court, with all due respect is a flawed understanding of the law. The linkage of qualifying wages to minimum wages is a substantial question of law and is not in any manner linked to the quantum of minimum wages being notified by various State Governments under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    (4) Albeit the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a> was passed in the year 2015, after the expiry of seven years, the matters were returned to the High Courts to enable them to test its constitutional validity. Against this backdrop, the possibility of divergent views or interpretations by various High Courts cannot be ruled out. Though this argument was rejected in Cummins Technologies case<\/i>13<\/sup><\/a>, it may be noted that the decision in this case was given by the Supreme Court in a year’s time.<\/p>\n

    (5) Apart from the above, assuming that one High Court has expeditiously disposed of this matter by striking down the vires of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>, in view of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.<\/i> v. Union of India<\/i>14<\/sup><\/a>, in its natural course, this matter would come back to the Supreme Court for its verdict.<\/p>\n

    Hence, it is respectfully observed that the Supreme Court could have decided this matter by itself for the sake of saving time.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    \u2020Chief Human Resource Officer — Global HR, Automotive Robotics (India) Private Limited. Author can be reached at <srajagopalan@arigs.com<\/a>>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    1.<\/a> Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    2.<\/a> Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    3.<\/a> Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a>, S. 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    4.<\/a> Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a>, S. 10<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    5.<\/a> Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a>, S. 11<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    6.<\/a> Minimum Wages Act, 1948<\/a>, S. 2<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    7.<\/a> Payment of Bonus Act, 1965<\/a>, S. 12<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    8.<\/a> 2022 SCC OnLine SC 816<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    9.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3310<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    10.<\/a> (2007) 15 SCC 649<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    11.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3310<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    12.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3310<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    13.<\/a> 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3310<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    14.<\/a> (2004) 6 SCC 254<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    by Sridhar Rajagopalan\u2020<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":274860,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[52118],"class_list":["post-274858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-payment-of-bonus-act"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"by Sridhar Rajagopalan\u2020\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-10-01T11:00:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/\",\"name\":\"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-01T11:00:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment","og_description":"by Sridhar Rajagopalan\u2020","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-10-01T11:00:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/","name":"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg","datePublished":"2022-10-01T11:00:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/01\/union-of-india-v-united-planters-assn-of-southern-india-a-case-comment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union of India v. United Planters Assn. of Southern India: A case comment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-99-1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":332305,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/03\/navigating-payment-aggregators-under-the-aegis-of-indias-payment-system-and-settlements-act-2007\/","url_meta":{"origin":274858,"position":0},"title":"Navigating Payment Aggregators under the Aegis of India’s Payment System and Settlements Act, 2007","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kandarp Raj Dipankar","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"India's Payment System","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Indias-Payment-System-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Indias-Payment-System-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Indias-Payment-System-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Indias-Payment-System-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/19\/existence-of-an-agreement-is-a-sine-qua-non-to-prove-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-2002\/","url_meta":{"origin":274858,"position":1},"title":"Existence of an \u2018agreement\u2019 is a sine qua non to prove contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): A four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahata and G.P. Mittal, Members, directed closure of the matter alleging contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002, by the Opposite Party 1 (OP 1)- Panchsheel\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197956,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/03\/orders-of-cci-are-in-rem-and-not-in-personam\/","url_meta":{"origin":274858,"position":2},"title":"Orders of CCI are in rem and not in personam","author":"Saba","date":"July 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):\u00a0 The present case was filed by Indian Motion Picture Producers\u2019 Association under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act (hereinafter \u2018the Act\u2019) against Federation of Western India Cine Employees (OP-1) and its affiliates (OP-2 to OP-21) alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214207,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/01\/international-labour-day-may-day-workers-day-may-1st\/","url_meta":{"origin":274858,"position":3},"title":"International Labour Day | May Day | Worker\u2019s Day: May 1st","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"by Devika Sharma\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/LABOUR-DAY.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/LABOUR-DAY.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/LABOUR-DAY.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/LABOUR-DAY.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/LABOUR-DAY.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239016,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/11\/cci-pre-installation-prominence-of-google-pay-on-android-smartphones-detailed-investigation-against-google-for-alleged-contravention-of-s-4-of-competition-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":274858,"position":4},"title":"CCI | Pre-installation & Prominence of Google Pay on Android Smartphones: Detailed Investigation against Google for alleged contravention of S. 4 of Competition Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 11, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):\u00a0The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members), prima facie opined that alleged conduct on the part of Google merit detailed investigation. Present information was filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 by the XYZ -- Informant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203974,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/cci-dismissed-the-allegations-of-abuse-of-dominance-and-cartelisation-in-light-of-competitive-forces-prevailing\/","url_meta":{"origin":274858,"position":5},"title":"CCI dismisses the allegations of abuse of dominance and cartelisation in light of competitive forces prevailing","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The 3-Member Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson), Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), while pronouncing an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, dismissed the case in light of no contravention being found as alleged of the provisions of Sections 3 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=274858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274858\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/274860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=274858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=274858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=274858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}