The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found All India Film Employees Confederation (AIFEC), Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) & its affiliates and three producer associations i.e. Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA)
CCI issues order against Grasim Industries Limited, Aditya Birla Chemicals (India) Ltd. and Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. for bid rigging Delhi Jal Board tenders for supply of Poly Aluminium Chloride; Imposes penalty of Rs. 2.30 crore, Rs. 2.09 crore and Rs. 1.88 crore upon GIL, ABCIL and GACL for the anti-competitive conduct. The Competition […]
Competition Commission of India finds conduct and practice of coal and sand transportation companies to be in contravention of the Competition Law; The parties have been directed to cease and desist from indulging in anti-competitive conduct; A total penalty of Rs. 11,81,71,260 imposed on the ten parties; Penalty also imposed on the eight officials of […]
The Informant is stated to be a Chartered Accountant and has filed the present information on behalf of Fight for Transparency Society. As per the information, OP is a provider of consumer communication services via a mobile app called ‘WhatsApp’ which is a proprietary, cross-platform,, encrypted instant messaging services for smartphones. It uses internet as a medium to send text messages, documents, images, videos, user location and audio messages to other users of WhatsApp using standard cellular mobile numbers.
CCI issues order against Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) for anti-competitive conduct, imposes penalty of Rs. 87 crore for the anti-competitive conduct.
Commission notes that providing free services cannot by itself raise competition concerns unless the same is offered by a dominant enterprise and shown to be tainted with an anti-competitive objective of excluding competition/ competitors, which does not seem to be the case in the instant matter as the relevant market is characterised by the presence […]
CCI finds the conduct and practice of Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA), FEFKA Director’s Union, FEFKA Production Executive’s Union and their five Office Bearers to be in contravention of the Competition Law. The Informant, T. G. Vinayakumar, a movie director, had approached CCI alleging anti-competitive conduct by the […]
We are reproducing below the CCI order dated 28.02.2014 in the case of Mr.Arun Anandagiri V/s. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) , Case No. 93/2013 in which CCI orders to investigate if ICAI has contravened provisions of Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002 in excercise of its non-regulatory function of organising CPE Seminars and restricting the same only to itself and its organs.
In this case, it is found that a consumer interested in buying an iPhone is tied to one of the two mobile networks i.e. Airtel or Vodafone. It is worth noting that at the time of launch of iPhone in India, Apple did not have an outlet to sell its iPhone, a high-end smartphone. Instead of investing money on creating sales and service outlet and incurring advertisement expenditure, Apple’s strategy was to have tactical agreement with network operators, possibly the best partners for selling mobile handsets. This arrangement also helped Apple in gauging the public perception for iPhone before actually selling iPhone through its own retail stores. The mobile network companies who spent money on creating distribution channel and incurring advertisement expenditure wanted the iPhone to be locked-in for some period so that they would be able to recoup their investment over a period of time.
Next issue to be considered is whether there was prima facie abuse of dominant position by OP. Section 4 of the Competition Act provides that there shall be an abuse of a dominant position, if an enterprise directly and indirectly discriminates in providing services to the customers or restricts technical development relating to services to the prejudice of the customers (section 4(2)(b)(i), section 4(2)(b) (ii)) or indulges in practice resulting in denial of market access in any manner to a customer (section 4(2)(c)).The installation of people’s meter by opposite party only in cities catches mood of urban viewers and gives a distorted picture of the viewership PAN India.
