CCI delves into whether patent litigation by dominant firms can be viewed as anti-competitive conduct, based on case of Macleods Pharmaceuticals vs Boehringer Ingelheim.
Analyzing the CCI’s stance on NABL requirements for labs. Key insights into calibration, unannounced assessments, and lab structure mandates.
Detailed analysis of Ramesh Kumar vs. Chandigarh Housing Board case, highlighting CHB’s abuse of dominant position in housing scheme possessions.
CCI finds no evidence of profiteering by Friends Land Developers for Anandam Square project. CGST Act, 2017’s Anti-Profiteering provisions not violated.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering Vs ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. (CCI) Introduction: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently concluded an investigation into allegations of profiteering against ATS Township Pvt. Ltd. The investigation, led by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP), was conducted following directives from the National Anti-profiteering Authority (NAA). Detailed Analysis: 1. The […]
Pearlite Real Properties vindicated in the profiteering case by the Competition Commission of India after a comprehensive review. Details of the decision inside.
Explore the full text of the Competition Commission of India’s order regarding the case between XYZ and H.N.B. Garhwal University. The order examines alleged contraventions of the Competition Act and provides insights into the Commission’s analysis and conclusions.
Read detailed analysis of CCI order directing further investigation into 8 projects by Lucknow Development Authority for potential profiteering issues.
Sumit Mansingka Vs E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (Competition Commission of India) Introduction: The recent order issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in the case of Sumit Mansingka vs E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd highlights the Commission’s proactive approach towards ensuring compliance and fair practices in the construction and real estate sector. The CCI has […]
The Commission observed that in addition to NBFCs, various financial institutions, including public sector banks and private sector banks, compete to provide loans against property. Given this competition, and the lack of evidence showing Hero FinCorp’s dominance, the Commission concluded that Hero FinCorp was not dominant in the relevant market. As a result, the Commission found no grounds to examine allegations of abusive conduct.
