Mr. Dushyant Vs National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) (Competition Commission of India) The Commission has, in some previous cases, recognising the autonomy of the procurer, stated that the procurer is the best judge of what and how it wants. At the cost of repetition, the Commission notes that every consumer/ procurer […]
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 […]
Nirmala Agarwal Vs. Greenfield City Projects LLP (Competition Commission of India) The Commission notes that the Informants have not provided any information/data in support of the alleged dominance of OPs in the relevant market. The Commission, however, on the basis of the information available in the public domain, notes that, other than OPs, a number […]
Samaleshwari Automobiles Vs Tata Motors Ltd. and Another (Competition Commission of India) Commission notes that the Informant has primarily alleged that the OPs have imposed unfair and discriminatory terms and conditions in the Dealership Agreement in respect of passenger/utility category of vehicles, besides indulging in anti-competitive practices, which put the Informant’s company in a deep […]
The Commission notes that cartelisation, including bid rigging, is a pernicious form of anti-competitive conduct under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. None of the Opposite Parties or their individuals have been able to rebut the evidence found against them by the DG of having indulged in anti-competitive conduct and manipulating the bids/bid rigging in respect of tenders floated by the Department of Agriculture, State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Commission is of the opinion that a work experience requirement of one year or minimum turnover requirement as alleged in the Information, does not in itself can be said to be anti-competitive.
Rohit Arora Vs. Zomato Private Limited (now Zomato Limited) (Competition Commission of India) On careful perusal of the Information, material available on record and submissions filed by the parties, the Commission finds that the grievance of the Informant primarily stems from the three incidents cited in the Information. The first incident pertains to the food […]
Mere commonality of ownership does not imply contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act, unless there is material on record to substantiate the allegations of bid rigging by way of collusion.
CCI observes that certain restrictions which are placed on exclusive outlets/dealers by the manufacturers may not always be termed as anti-competitive. An exclusive arrangement in a vertical chain is not an anathema under competition law, when supported by circumstances warranting such exclusivity when looked at objectively.
Vipul Jain Vs. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited and Others (Competition Commission of India) It has been stated that during the course of his business, the Informant has discovered that OPs have formed a cartel in response to certain tenders floated by various government departments for procurement of smartphones, It has been alleged that OP-1 […]
