Corporate Law : Explore intersection of India's insolvency and competition laws, focusing on mandatory CCI approval for mergers in resolution plan...
Corporate Law : Explore India's reformed Green Channel framework for M&A approvals, analyzing the impact of new regulations on efficiency, complia...
Corporate Law : Explore the Competition Commission of India’s merger remedies, including structural, behavioral, and hybrid solutions, to addres...
Corporate Law : CCI penalizes Maruti Suzuki ₹200 crore for restricting dealer discounts under anti-competitive policies. Case highlights include...
Corporate Law : CCI finds no evidence of PVR's alleged abuse of dominance in film exhibition. Claims lacked support, validating PVR's business str...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India has proposed amendments to address administrative and procedural issues identified during impl...
Corporate Law : Parliament was informed that no antitrust or merger cases originated from Jammu and Kashmir during the year. The key takeaway is t...
Corporate Law : The competition watchdog has initiated further proceedings over widespread flight disruptions, signaling that the matter merits ex...
Corporate Law : The CCI released a market study on AI and competition, identifying emerging risks and advocating for government policies to lower ...
Corporate Law : M&As must be notified to CCI only if they meet specific thresholds under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002. Details on combin...
Corporate Law : CCI held no prima facie violation of Sections 3 or 4 as dominance, collusion, and anti-competitive agreements were not established...
Corporate Law : CCI held evidence did not prove mandatory NOC, PIS approvals or systematic boycott after compliance measures and closed the procee...
Corporate Law : The Commission examined allegations relating to one-sided agreements, rental suppression, and delayed payments in commercial real ...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission found that truck associations collectively fixed freight charges beyond government-prescribed limits an...
Corporate Law : The dispute centred on whether the airport taxi operator had exclusive control over transportation services. The Commission relied...
Corporate Law : The CCI held that restricting warranty services in India to products bought from authorised distributors was unfair and discrimina...
Corporate Law : Summary of the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Cost of Production) Regulations, 2025. Details key changes, defin...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) notifies new regulations for recovering monetary penalties, detailing procedures for dem...
Corporate Law : CCI penalizes Meta ₹213.14 crore for abusing dominance through WhatsApp's 2021 Privacy Policy update. Cease-and-desist orders an...
Corporate Law : Explore the amendments to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regulations in 2024, enhancing transparency and procedures. Un...
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 […]
The Commission shall maintain confidentiality of the identity of an Informant on a request made to it in writing: Provided that where it is necessary or expedient to disclose the identity of the Informant for the purposes of the Act, the Commission may do so after providing a reasonable opportunity to the Informant, to represent its case before the Commission.
