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...
The CCI held that allegations of excessive pricing for medicines, consumables, room rent, and diagnostic services were not substantiated. The Commission found that patients could assess treatment costs beforehand and no separate aftermarket was established.
CCI directed investigation into allegations that certain liquor manufacturers and distributors entered into restrictive agreements to increase market share and influence retail supply patterns.
Allegations of an implied anti-competitive agreement between a regulator and a software provider were rejected. The Commission found no material indicating collusion or exclusion of competitors.
The Commission found no proof that tender conditions excluded competitors or favoured select players. It held that procurement terms alone do not violate competition law.
The case examined allegations of inflated and discriminatory pricing in supply of a critical railway component. The Commission held that price changes were attributable to currency fluctuations, logistics, and quantity, and found no abuse of dominance.
The Commission held that bidders colluded by quoting identical and patterned prices across multiple tenders. It found that such conduct indicated pre-determined outcomes and violated competition law.
The Competition Commission found prima facie evidence that breeder agreements restricted farmers from selling to competitors or using alternative breeds. It held that such clauses may constitute vertical restraints, warranting a detailed investigation. The case highlights concerns over limited market access and potential anti-competitive practices.
The Commission dismissed allegations of anti-competitive conduct as no evidence under Sections 3 or 4 was established. It held that regulatory violations fall outside competition law and must be addressed under other statutes.
Allegations of collusive bidding and tender manipulation were examined but not substantiated by evidence. The Commission held that procurement conditions were legally permissible. The key takeaway is that absence of proof of agreement defeats cartel claims.
The Commission found no prima facie violation of competition law despite allegations of arbitrary account termination. It held that enforcement of platform policies and appeal mechanisms did not amount to abuse of dominance.
