Corporate Law : Explore intersection of competition law and telecom regulation, focusing on abuse of dominance and jurisdictional conflicts betwee...
Corporate Law : Learn how the Competition Commission of India determines dominant positions of entities by considering various factors, as outline...
Corporate Law : Explore the intricate interplay between competition law and sustainability, unraveling conflicts, costs, and consumer welfare impl...
Corporate Law : Explore FAQs on the Lesser Penalty Regime by the Competition Commission of India. Learn about benefits, application process, and p...
Corporate Law : Explore the foundation and functioning of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) under the Competition Act, 2002. Understand it...
Corporate Law : Explore proposed amendments to the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, analyzing their impact and implica...
Corporate Law : Explore the proposed amendments to Regulations 35, 37, and 50 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009. L...
Corporate Law : Explore the Ministry of Corporate Affairs draft policy for pre-legislative consultation and a comprehensive review of rules and re...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) seeks feedback on the draft regulations for determining turnover or income. Share your c...
Corporate Law : Stay informed on the latest CCI (General) Regulation amendments for Interlocutory Applications. Learn about numbering, fees, and s...
Goods and Services Tax : Detailed analysis of Competition Commission of India's order regarding Cinema Ventures Pvt Ltd not passing GST rate reduction bene...
Goods and Services Tax : The average base price of tickets sold before and after the GST rate reduction was compared. The DGAP found that the company had n...
Corporate Law : Learn about CCI's decision that extended car delivery times do not merit antitrust scrutiny, analyzed in the Balbir Singh Nagpal V...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the DGAP report on GST rate reduction impact on movie ticket prices, alleged profiteering by the respondent, detailed inve...
Corporate Law : It has been alleged that Google is granting exclusive access to Truecaller to share private contact information of the users with ...
Corporate Law : Explore the amendments to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regulations in 2024, enhancing transparency and procedures. Un...
Corporate Law : Discover the Competition Commission of Indias in-depth study on AI's impact on competition, efficiency, and innovation. Get insigh...
Corporate Law : Competition Commission of India announces new regulations and penalty guidelines to streamline competition law enforcement. Read m...
Corporate Law : Delve into the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) regulations on determining turnover or income, exploring amendments, stakeh...
Corporate Law : Explore the Competition Commission of India (Settlement) Regulations, 2024. Learn about the settlement process, changes, and its i...
MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 15th October, 2014 G.S.R. 728(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (mb) of sub-section (2) of section 63 read with sub-section (2) of Section 53E of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules to amend the Competition Appellate […]
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.
F. No. CCI/CD/Amend/Comb. Regl./2014.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Competition Commission of India hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011, namely:—
Competition Commission of India(CCI) has imposed a penalty of Rs.3.81 crore on Dr. L.H.Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai for violation of Section 3 & 4 of the Competition Act. The informant Mr. Ramakant Kini had approached CCI alleging that the hospital had abused
Competition Commission of India to investigate the matter involving Delhi Development Authority on alleged violation of Competition Act Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered investigation by its Director General in the matter involving Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in respect of allegations regarding violation of provisions of Competition Act by DDA. The order has been […]
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 625.43 Lakhs on 11 Companies in a case filed by Director General-Supplies & Disposal (DGS&D), New Delhi relating to a tender for supply of polyester blended duck ankle boots rubber sole. CCI found these 11 Companies to have violated the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 which deals with anticompetitive agreements.
Learned counsel very earnestly argued that the CCI was incorrect in firstly deciding upon the relevant market and secondly on the aspect of the respondent being a dominant player in the market. The learned counsel wanted to rely on the prospectus of the respondent which, in our view, would be an irrelevant document to decide the dominance in the market. The informant was expected to point out as to how the respondent enjoyed the dominant position in the market, by collection of evidence and the facts. That unfortunately seems not to have been done by the informant. We cannot find fault, under the circumstances, with the finding of the CCI that the respondent was not enjoying the dominant position in the market. Once that factual position is arrived at, there will be no question of contravention of Section 4 of the Act. If the respondent was not dominant, there was no question of the abuse of dominance.
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.
There cannot be any dispute that Karanataka High Court has specifically held that the provisions of the MRTP Act were not and could not be applicable to the educational institutions. There is no dispute that the present complaint also pertains to the educational institution and its activity of imparting education.
