Case Law Details
Rajendra Khare Vs Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Inc (Competition Commission of India)
The Informant has also alleged contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act stating that ISACA is ruling over CMMI Maturity Level Certification Market in India as it is completely capable of protecting any market or denying market access because it has no competitor, and that ISACA is completely able to dictate the price as it wants and is totally uninfluenced by the market conditions. Beyond this, the Informant has not explained how ISACA is leveraging its dominant position and in which market is ISACA trying to protect its position. In the absence thereof, the Commission is of the view that such bald allegation does not require any further assessment.
Besides, the Informant has also alleged fraudulent practices carried out by ISACA. The Informant has mentioned that ISACA is carrying out the CMMI Business under the domain name CMMIINSTITUTE.COM which creates false impression of existence of an institutional structure, whereas there exists no Institute as such. Further, the Informant has also found fault with ISACA making a ‘false’ claim on its websites related to statistics of organisations who have adopted CMMI and improved their business. At the outset, it may be highlighted that such alleged fraudulent practices, as highlighted in the present case, do not fall within the ambit of the Act. Even otherwise, the information on ISACA and CMMI’s website indicate that the CMMI training is being provided through partner institutions and ISACA centrally controls certification.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
