In this case Nothing has been pointed out that the bank was not within its right to firstly levy those charges or that it was acting beyond the rules. In levying those charges, the bank has fully justified as it relied on the Reserve Bank Rules and the banking practice. After all the bank had to maintain the accounts and it was by way of an agreement between the complainant and the bank that the bank was levying Rs. 250 per bill per quarter. Therefore, on this account there was no fault on the part of the bank.
In so far as the specific instances of the abuse of agreement in question are concerned, it is obvious that there has been a settlement between the original complainant and the respondents. Because the complainant does not have any more complaint/grievance of any boycott or the compulsory undertakings which he is to give under the authority of either FMC or FDC so that question will clearly be foreign to the present enquiry.
There was nothing to show that unfair pricing was done by Microsoft in selling identical licence at different prices. No evidence was brought. The respondent was not tying its OEM with new computers. The purchase of personal computer has the choice to have the programme of Microsoft Office or Words getting installed in its computer if he so chooses. This cannot be, therefore, an example of tying up. There was no compulsion on the appellant to purchase Microsoft software to purchase the computers only as the OEM licensee was free to sell their product, i.e., personal computer even without the warranty that would clearly end the argument about the tying up.
Considering the Section and its language plainly, it is apparent that the agreement to allow concessions and benefits including allowances, discounts, rebates or credit have to have a nexus with the dealings of the respondent. The said dealings would not cover a uniform policy by the respondent to sell its product. We agree with Shri Makheeja when he says that if there is a discrimination between authorized dealers inter se, it would amount to a restrictive trade practice but in that case, it will be that the dealing of the respondent with a particular dealer was discriminatory in comparison to its dealing with another dealer. Such is not the case here.
We do not see any justification to hold that there was any breach of any of the provisions under Section 4 of the Act. Similarly, we cannot accept the argument of Shri Sharma that AAI was a dominant purchaser and had abused its dominance. In fact for the purposes of deciding the dominance, we would have to take into consideration both the product market as well as geographical market.
Director General had concluded on the basis of his investigation that it was not proved that foreign airlines hold about 90% market share in the relevant market of international flying to and fro from India. The appellant was unable to give any specific statistics before the CCI or even before us. On the other hand, from the documents on record
