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 : 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 : SEO Meta Description: Learn about the importance of competition in public procurement, common anti-competitive practices like bid-...
Corporate Law : CCI directed investigation into allegations that certain liquor manufacturers and distributors entered into restrictive agreements...
Corporate Law : Allegations of an implied anti-competitive agreement between a regulator and a software provider were rejected. The Commission fou...
Corporate Law : The Commission found no proof that tender conditions excluded competitors or favoured select players. It held that procurement ter...
Corporate Law : The case examined allegations of inflated and discriminatory pricing in supply of a critical railway component. The Commission hel...
Corporate Law : The Commission held that bidders colluded by quoting identical and patterned prices across multiple tenders. It found that such co...
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...
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.
