Home Maxims & Terms Meaning and determination meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Meaning and determination

Meaning and determination legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2016 CLD 402 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss. 11 & 2(e)Competition (Merger Control) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 5 & 6Pre-merger application, acceptance ofApproval of mergerFactors for determination of substantial lessening of competitionMerger which substantially lessens competition by creating or strengthening a dominant position in relevant marketDetermination"Dominant position"Meaning and determination

Pharmaceutical company, pursuant to share and business sale agreement, submitted application seeking clearance for acquisition of global vaccines business in market of meningococcal (ACWY) vaccines from another pharmaceutical company

Only one product from each of the merging parties was substitutable with each other which they had marketed in Pakistan

Market for medicine of other company was no longer a duopolistic market as there was new entrant in the relevant market

Competition Commission identified competition concerns regarding proposed acquisition

Market concentration data of relevant year proposed that transaction would result in only two players in market for the medicine in question in Pakistan

Applicant company, who was already a dominant player, would further strengthen its dominant position in relevant market and thereby increase its market power

Herfindahl Hirshman Index (HHI) calculation based on sales (value) for the relevant year was above 2000, which meant that relevant market was highly concentrated

As per Merger Guidelines, Competition Commission was likely to find horizontal competition concerns in market with post-merger HHI of above 2000 and delta above 250

After consummation of proposed acquisition, applicant company would own and control the product

Other product which was priced higher was used for long term effects for ages under fifty-five years

Applicant company might be able to escalate price of 'product', which would harm end users that were hospital, clinics and pharmacies

Merger parties were particularly close competitors in relevant market with a third company, which was the only other company supplying those products in Pakistan

Merging company would cease to compete independently of applicant company and thereby remove or lessen competition of applicant company with its two significant competitors

Proposed acquisition would weaken competitive constraints on remaining suppliers or distributors, which might offer them with increased incentive or ability to raise prices and/or offer lower levels of service

New entry or expansion in relation to the product required substantial investment in research and development

For same reason, new entrant took many years in entering relevant market in Pakistan

Given effectiveness of each product program which differs in terms of age usage and duration of protection, it was important to have all the products available in market

Applicant company proposed and committed to implement certain commitments to alleviate said competition concerns undertaking to divest its global business; in addition to those commitments, Competition Commission observed that purchaser with respect to divestment must establish presence in distribution channels used in business in Pakistan

Pre-merger application for merger was allowed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Meaning and determination", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124955303

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Meaning and determination"

SCMR 2023
Civil Petition No. 3209 of 2019, decided on 3rd November, 2022.

2023 S C M R 246

Mst. TAYYEBA AMBAREEN and another — Petitioners Versus SHAFQAT ALI KIYANI and another — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLD 2016
2015-February-20

2016 C L D 402

Show Cause Notice decided on 20th February, 2015.

Court: Competition Commission of Pakistan
PTD 2009
I.T.As. Nos.265/KB, 414/KB, 1070/KB and 1071 of 2005, decided on 24th May, 2008.

2009 P T D (Trib

N/A

Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PLD 2019
2019-February-20

P L D 2019 Supreme Court 461

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Appellant Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD 2016
Writ Petition No. 3 of 2011, decided on 6th April, 2016.

2016 P T D 2111

Messrs ASFAQ TRADING COMPANY through Proprietor Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, LAHORE through Deputy Collector of Customs (Group-1), Lahore

Court: Lahore High Court
SCMR 2019
Decided on 3rd April, 2019.

2019 S C M R 885

STOCKER — Appellant Versus STOCKER — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of UK*
MLD 2004
Election Petition No.62 of 2002, decided on 18th March, 2004.

2004 M L D 1089

Haji LIAQAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD AFZAL SAHI and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Election Tribunal Punjab
PTD 1984
Estate Duty Case No. 166 of 1972, decided on 25th.Apri1, 1983.

1984 P T D 116

MUHAMMAD UMER FAROOQUI Versus THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, KARACHI

Court: Karachi High Court
PTD 2000
Income-tax Reference No. 130 of 1984, decided on 7th January, 1998.

2000 P T D 1531

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HARIHAR JETHALAL JARIWALLA

Court: 234 I T R 1
MLD 2013
2011-November-23

2013 M L D 305

MUHAMMAD AJAIB — Appellant Versus TASLEEM WAKEEL — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)