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 role and functioning of BCCI have already been examined in detail earlier in this order. An analysis of the position clearly brings out that there is an overlap between the way BCCI is discharging its regulatory and commercial roles respectively, and the modus operandi/decision making process does not clearly separate the two roles.
There was nothing to show that unfair pricing was done by Microsoft in selling identical licence at different prices. No evidence was brought. The respondent was not tying its OEM with new computers. The purchase of personal computer has the choice to have the programme of Microsoft Office or Words getting installed in its computer if he so chooses. This cannot be, therefore, an example of tying up. There was no compulsion on the appellant to purchase Microsoft software to purchase the computers only as the OEM licensee was free to sell their product, i.e., personal computer even without the warranty that would clearly end the argument about the tying up.
Considering the Section and its language plainly, it is apparent that the agreement to allow concessions and benefits including allowances, discounts, rebates or credit have to have a nexus with the dealings of the respondent. The said dealings would not cover a uniform policy by the respondent to sell its product. We agree with Shri Makheeja when he says that if there is a discrimination between authorized dealers inter se, it would amount to a restrictive trade practice but in that case, it will be that the dealing of the respondent with a particular dealer was discriminatory in comparison to its dealing with another dealer. Such is not the case here.
Director General had concluded on the basis of his investigation that it was not proved that foreign airlines hold about 90% market share in the relevant market of international flying to and fro from India. The appellant was unable to give any specific statistics before the CCI or even before us. On the other hand, from the documents on record
As per the information available in public domain, it is clear that the OP was not the only real estate developer offering commercial office space in Delhi. There are other real estate developers as well, e.g., Ansal API, Unitech, BPTP, Omaxe, Parsavnath etc.Presence of other real estate developers offering commercial office space also indicates that the informant was not dependent upon the opposite party for provisioning of an office space.
By the statutory provision, the legislature has authorized the Central Government to classify and revise rates/freight with respect to carriage of passenger and goods. The impugned rate instructions/circulars issued by OP were uniformly applicable for all the entities who wanted to avail the services of Indian railways for transporting their goods.
Section 12B was introduced in the MRTP Act by Act 30 of the 1984 as an independent remedy for a claimant in addition to a suit that he may file to claim any loss or damage that he may suffer by reason of any monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice as would be clear from sub-section (4) of section 12B. There is no reference at all in section 12B of the MRTP Act to the provisions of either section 10
The Competition Commission of India has held that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act by the alleged agreement between Yash Raj Films Private Limited and its various associated enterprises. The Competition Commission of India passed its order in the case filed by Ajay Devgn Films against Yash Raj Films Private Limited.
GAL is not enjoying the position of dominance in the relevant market on any of the parameters and factors given in section 19(4). GAL is not found to be in a dominant position in terms of the market share, market structure, size and resources, dependence of consumers etc. Thus, when the GAL is not in a dominant position in the relevant market the question of abuse of its dominance does not arise. Therefore, in the instant matter, no case of violation of provisions of section 4 is made out.
a. In the appointment of stockists by way of issue of ‘NOC’ and regulating the number of stockists in contravention of Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002. b. In preventing and restricting the retailers from allowing discounts to the consumers in contravention of Section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. As mentioned earlier a suo motto investigation be initiated into the nexus between associations both horizontal and vertical for as observed most of the practices have evolved over several decades. In fact, association in the pharma industry associations have impacted on several activities along the value chain.
