Aerospace Diary

Neelam Mathews Sept 16, 2012 Amid all the news breaks, we missed writing on the judgment of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) which has annulled a fine issued by the CCI to Kingfisher Airlines. Non-Compliance Image Source- cattlelogos.com The 10 million rupee (about EUR 145,000) fine was the first penalty levied by the Indian Competition Commission under the Competition Act 2002 where Kingfisher was sanctioned for allegedly failing to supply information in the context of the CCI's investigation into the company's alliance with Jet Airways.  "Kingfisher appealed to Compat, which set aside the CCI order and remitted it for consideration.  Compat found that the letters sent to the airline were notices of extension and not, as argued by CCI, reminders to comply with the original information request.  Compat found that the CCI failed to distinguish between a failure to comply and late compliance. In respect of the latter, there is only failure wh...

Suzanne Rab, a partner at King & Spalding in London, has experience in proceedings before the UK’s  competition and regulatory authorities, and the European Commission.  Excerpts from China Business Law Journal April 30, 2012 Comparisons between the stellar growth and potential of two of the world’s biggest economies, China and India, become increasingly irresistible as both these Asian super-giants compete internationally and are prospects for foreign investment. Against this background, it’s timely to examine where the two countries stand on their recent adoption and enforcement of modernised competition laws. China introduced its Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) on 31 August 2007, with effect from 1 August 2008. India’s new competition law  under the Competition Act 2002 (Indian Competition Act) has been implemented in two stages with powers to regulate agreements and commercial practices effective from 20 May 2009, while me...