CCI held no prima facie violation of Sections 3 or 4 as dominance, collusion, and anti-competitive agreements were not established, leading to closure under Section 26(2).
CCI held evidence did not prove mandatory NOC, PIS approvals or systematic boycott after compliance measures and closed the proceedings.
The Commission examined allegations relating to one-sided agreements, rental suppression, and delayed payments in commercial real estate projects. It ruled that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance or anti-competitive conduct was established because dominance itself was not demonstrated.
The Competition Commission found that truck associations collectively fixed freight charges beyond government-prescribed limits and restricted market competition. The ruling directs them to cease such anti-competitive practices.
The dispute centred on whether the airport taxi operator had exclusive control over transportation services. The Commission relied on the licence agreement’s non-exclusivity clause and found no prima facie abuse of dominant position.
The Informant alleged unfair subscription cancellation and service deficiencies by an AI platform. The CCI held that the matter was essentially a dispute between the parties and did not raise competition law concerns under Section 4.
The CCI found a prima facie case against restrictive contractual clauses that allegedly prevented participants from joining competing pageants and controlled their professional activities. The matter has been referred to the Director General for investigation.
The CCI held that allegations relating to vehicle permits, GST remittance, and transport rule violations fall outside the scope of competition law. The Commission found no prima facie abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act.
The CCI found that the investigation largely relied on comparisons with diagnostic labs and hotels rather than comparable super-specialty hospitals. The Commission ruled that such analysis was insufficient to prove exploitative pricing.
Commission found that patients undergoing elective treatment generally receive estimated treatment costs in advance and retain the ability to choose alternative hospitals. It therefore declined to treat in-patient services as a separate aftermarket under competition law.
