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 […]
In re Chief Materials Manager, North Western Railway Vs. Moulded Fibreglass Products and Others (Competition Commission of India) The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued a final order against eleven (11) companies/ firms which were found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition […]
CCI issues a cease and desist order against Dumper and Dumper Truck Union Lime Stone (Dumper Truck Union) in Sanu Mines area of Jaisalmer, Rajasthan Competition Commission of India (CCI’ passed an order on 7th February 2022 under the provisions of Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) after having found Dumper Truck Union to […]
Ministry of Corporate Affairs Vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. & Ors. (Competition Commission of India) The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had passed a final order dated 31.08.2018 against five Tyre companies namely Apollo Tyres Ltd., MRF Ltd., CEAT Ltd., JK Tyre and Industries Ltd., Birla Tyres Ltd. and their association i.e. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA) for […]
The Informant alleges that Google is the major stakeholder in the digital advertising space, and it unilaterally decides the amount to be paid to the publishers for the content created by them, as well as the terms on which the aforesaid amounts have to be paid. As an illustration, the Informant alleges that Google has unilaterally decided not to pay the publishers of news for the snippets used by them in search.
In Re: Together We Fight Society Vs. Apple Inc. (Competition Commission Of India) Commission is of the prima facie view that Apple has violated the provisions of Section 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 4(2)(d) and 4(2)(e) of the Act, as elaborated supra which warrants detailed investigation. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the Director General […]
In Re: Anti-competitive conduct in the paper manufacturing industry (Competition Commission of India) CCI imposes a penalty on paper manufacturers for indulging in cartelisation The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued a final order yesterday against certain companies manufacturing paper from agricultural waste and recycled wastepaper as well as an association, which were found to have contravened […]
Re Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Competition Commission Of India) The Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a ₹200 crore penalty on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL), for allegedly stifling competition with its policy of controlling the discounts dealers could offer consumers. Commission concludes that MSIL not only entered into an agreement with its dealers across […]
Harshita Chawla Vs. WhatsApp Inc. & Facebook Inc. (Competition Commission of India) As regards the allegation of leveraging, the Commission does not agree with the Informant for reasons cited supra while dealing with the allegation under Section 4(2)(d) of the Act. The Informant has contended that WhatsApp will leverage its dominance in the upstream market […]
