Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sanjay Kumar Vs Karagiri Studio (Competition Commission of India)
Appeal Number : Case No. 04 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sanjay Kumar Vs Karagiri Studio (Competition Commission of India)

The case of Sanjay Kumar Vs Karagiri Studio sheds light on the consequences of defrauding customers and supplying counterfeit goods within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002. The matter, addressed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), involved an e-commerce enterprise, Karagiri Studio, allegedly delivering fake silk sarees against orders for Geographical Indication (GI) tagged Kanjeevaram and Paithani sarees.

Analysis: Sanjay Kumar, the Informant, claimed that he was supplied polyester sarees instead of the ordered silk sarees. The core issues raised were that of ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘abuse of dominant position’ by the Opposite Party, Karagiri Studio. However, the CCI, upon reviewing the case, determined that this was primarily a consumer issue rather than a competition issue. The Commission found no substantive evidence indicating predatory pricing or abuse of dominant position. Moreover, the Informant did not identify a relevant market or conduct falling under Section 4 of the Act.

While the Informant made reference to the GI Act and sought penalty for false GI tagging, the Commission held this as misplaced and unrelated to its jurisdiction. The crux of the matter pertained to consumer fraud, which falls outside the ambit of competition law and within the domain of consumer protection laws.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the CCI found no contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, by Karagiri Studio. The case emphasizes the differentiation between consumer issues and competition issues. It also underlines the need for consumers to seek redress under appropriate laws and forums based on the nature of their grievances. The ruling closes the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act, and the Informant’s request for relief under Section 33 of the Act was rejected, pointing to alternative legal recourse for consumer complaints.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031