Corporate Law : The CCI held that dominance alone is insufficient to establish a violation under Section 4. The key takeaway is that actual or pot...
Corporate Law : This case examines whether borrowing costs should be capitalised using full-year borrowings or only those during the eligible peri...
Corporate Law : The Court’s 2025 ruling upheld CCI’s power to impose structural and personal penalties without a second notice, marking a majo...
Corporate Law : India is moving to regulate Big Tech's anti-competitive practices like predatory pricing, self-preferencing, and data misuse. A ne...
Corporate Law : This analysis reveals how exclusive airport retail concession agreements create monopolies, leading to unchecked high prices for p...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India has proposed amendments to address administrative and procedural issues identified during impl...
Corporate Law : The proposed rules establish a comprehensive conduct framework for CCI employees, including integrity, conflict-of-interest contro...
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 : Enforcement activity rose with steady antitrust actions and quicker merger disposals, aided by reduced timelines and streamlined p...
Corporate Law : The competition watchdog has initiated further proceedings over widespread flight disruptions, signaling that the matter merits ex...
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 : Clause (f) of Section 19 of the Competition Amendment Act 2023 comes into effect on 19th September 2024, as per the Ministry of Co...
The CCI found that the investigation largely relied on comparisons with diagnostic labs and hotels rather than comparable super-specialty hospitals. The Commission ruled that such analysis was insufficient to prove exploitative pricing.
Commission found that patients undergoing elective treatment generally receive estimated treatment costs in advance and retain the ability to choose alternative hospitals. It therefore declined to treat in-patient services as a separate aftermarket under competition law.
The Competition Commission of India held that higher hospital charges alone do not establish abuse of dominance without proof that prices were excessive and unfair. The case against the hospital was closed for lack of sufficient evidence.
The CCI found that the investigation failed to compare hospital charges with similarly placed hospitals and relied on inadequate benchmarks such as standalone labs and hotels. The Commission therefore held that unfair pricing was not conclusively proved.
The CCI held that higher prices charged by a private super-specialty hospital for tests, medicines, and consumables did not automatically amount to abuse of dominance. The Commission found no sufficient evidence proving that the pricing was both excessive and unfair.
The Commission observed that patients commonly seek treatment across Delhi-NCR and therefore defined the relevant geographic market broadly rather than limiting it to Delhi alone.
Competition Commission of India held that hospital rooms provide medical infrastructure, emergency support, and trained healthcare staff, making them fundamentally different from hotel accommodations. It therefore rejected findings based on comparisons between hospital room rents and hotel tariffs.
Commission found that comparisons between hospital diagnostic charges and standalone labs were inadequate because hospitals operate continuously with different infrastructure requirements.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of excessive pricing for medicines, tests, and consumables were not conclusively established. The case was closed after the Commission found insufficient evidence of abuse of dominant position.
The CCI observed that there was no evidence that medicines or consumables were sold above manufacturer-fixed MRPs. The Commission held that profit margins alone were insufficient to establish abuse of dominance.
