Dissenting Opinion Sample Clauses
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
Dissenting Opinion. If there is any professional judgment that differs from the prevailing staff view on a specific area in a product produced by the working group, a written dissenting opinion can be submitted with the working group product. The dissenting opinion contains a detailed description of the working group member’s views and how it differs from any issues from staff, working group, or management views. A dissenting opinion may be submitted by a working group member, the working group, a steering committee member, or by the steering committee.
Dissenting Opinion. As per the dissenting view, two members were of the view that the arrangement between the banks and the customers was violative of section 19(3) (a) (c) and (d). it was observed that the main objective of the competition law is to ensure the best interests of the consumers and the commission must ensure that these interests are secured and safeguarded. Thus, while broadly construing the matter, the minority opinion was in the favor of customers. The term agreement should be construed broadly by the minority and not strictly as per the statutory definitions. The minority framed its opinion in the following words: “…it transpires that members of IBA felt a need for a common approach in fixing pre- payment charges on loans and the issue was discussed and deliberated in the IBA meeting on 28.08.2003 which culminated in the circular dated 10.09.2003 issued by IBA to all chief executives of its member banks. It was noted therein that pre-payment charges in the range of 0.5% to 1% would be reasonable. However, decision in this regard was left to the individual discretion of banks… it may be noticed that the definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Further, the same has been worded in a wide manner and the agreement does not necessarily have to be in the form of a formal document executed by the parties. Thus there is no need for an explicit agreement and the existence of the agreement can be inferred from the intention and objectives of the parties. In the cases of conspiracy the proof of formal agreement may not be available and may be established by circumstantial evidence only. The concurrence of parties and the consensus amongst them can, therefore, be gathered from their common motive and concerted conduct.” Competition Commission of India v Steel Authority of India Ltd & Anr.15 Background: Present appeals arose in pursuance to an issue initiated upon the information furnished by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ steel and power ltd. (informants) to the competition commission of India, against the violation of section 3 and section 4 of the competition Act 2002 by Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL). It was alleged that SAIL, which enjoys a dominant position in the market has abused that position by entering into an exclusive supply agreement with Indian Railways for the supply of rails. Thus other market players were completely excluded from having an opportunity to enter into the business. This exclusive supply agreement being a vertical agreement, along with the abuse of domina...