The OP is stated to be a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as well as with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and has been engaged in the business of lending money to the public and collecting deposits. The Informant is stated to be a consumer under Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act.
In re Private Entrepreneurs Godowns Association Vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (CCI) As far as the allegations of there being an anti-competitive agreement in violation of competition law amongst OP-1 and OP-2 are concerned, the Commission observes that the Informant, besides making bald allegations, has placed on record no material, which may even prima facie […]
In re House of Diagnostics LLP Vs Neurologica Corporation (CCI) It has been alleged by the Informant that OP-4 is the exclusive aftersales service provider of OP-1 in India with respect to the machine in question. On the other hand, OP-4 has replied that though it is the authorised service provider of aftersales services with […]
In re Hiveloop Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Britannia Industries Ltd. (CCI) The Commission finds that, with respect to the allegation of discrimination between the Informant and other distributors of Britannia, neither the Informant nor its group entity can be said to be similarly placed as other, more than three thousand, distributors of Britannia. In the […]
In re Vijay Gopal Vs Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (CCI) The exclusive and restrictive agreements of BookMyShow with single screen cinemas and multiplexes, in conjunction, prima facie appear to have the potential of denying market access to competing platforms and potential entrants. The cinema theatres as well as the cinegoers alike are restricted in […]
Ashwani Kumar Singla Vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Competition Commission of India) The Commission observes that while determination of price of a drug and the aspects pertaining to its labeling may not be in the domain of the Commission, however, any unfair or discriminatory conduct in relation thereto by a dominant entity can be assessed […]
In re Cartelisation in the supply of Protective Tubes to Indian Railways (Competition Commission of India) Facts: 1. The present matter was initiated by the Commission suo motu, pursuant to receipt of an application under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) read with Regulation 5 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) […]
Hexa Communications Private Limited Vs Atos India Private Limited (Competition Commission of India) The Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, observes that there shall not be any requirement of defining a precise relevant market for the assessment of dominance of the Opposite Party. The products of the Opposite Party, namely, enterprise […]
Confederation of Professional Baseball Softball Clubs Vs Amateur Baseball Federation of India (Competition Commission of India) The Commission observes that ABFI by issuing communication dated 07.01.2021 to its affiliated State Baseball Associations requesting them not to entertain the unrecognised bodies and further by requesting them not to allow their respective State players to participate in […]
Rajarhat Welfare Association Vs DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. (Competition Commission of India) As per the information available in public domain the DLF, being a new entrant in developing commercial space in Kolkata, is having only one property related to commercial retail space. In view of these factors the DLF cannot be treated as a dominant […]
