Scribd
Upload
157 views

Judgements CCII

1. This document summarizes judgements made under the Competition Act of 2002 in India. 2. It discusses cases related to anti-competitive practices like abuse of dominance and predatory pricing in various industries such as multiplex cinemas, radio taxis, and oil & gas services. 3. The judgements analyze definitions of relevant market, dominance, and assess whether practices like discounts, market restrictions violate sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act.

Uploaded by

SADAF FAIZI
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
157 views

Judgements CCII

1. This document summarizes judgements made under the Competition Act of 2002 in India. 2. It discusses cases related to anti-competitive practices like abuse of dominance and predatory pricing in various industries such as multiplex cinemas, radio taxis, and oil & gas services. 3. The judgements analyze definitions of relevant market, dominance, and assess whether practices like discounts, market restrictions violate sections 3 or 4 of the Competition Act.

Uploaded by

SADAF FAIZI
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Judgements under Competition Act, 2002

1. Vijay Gopal v. Inox Leisure Ltd.


Conduct of multiplex malls in not allowing consumers to carry their own eatables and drinking water
inside their movie hall is not anti-competitive.

3. Meru Travel Solutions Pvt Ltd. vs Uber India Systems Private Limited & Ors. (CCI)
Radio taxi service – OP offering services at reduced rate and also gives more discount – Whether this
constitutes anti competition practice and abuse of dominance – Held, No.

4. Tamil Nadu Consumer Products Distributors Association vs Britannia Industries Ltd. (CCI)
Section 4 – Abuse of dominance – Restrictive conditions in distributorship agreement – Whether
constitute abuse of dominance – Held, No.
Market segmentation and offering special rate and discounts based on sales volume per se cannot be
regarded as anti-competitive.

5. Registrars Association of India vs NSDL & Ors. (CCI)


Sections 3 & 4 – NSDL proposed to enter the share transfer agency segment through its subsidiary –
Whether it constitutes abuse of dominance by NSDL being a depository to also become a share transfer
agent – Held, No.

6. MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (CCI)
The court set a rigorous two-fold test for the identification of predatory pricing practices.
a) The first test was that the alleged predator's prices were below' an appropriate cost measure.
b) The court's second condition was that there must be likelihood of recovering losses incurred by the
predator.

7. HLS Asia Ltd. v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. (CCI)


No case of predatory pricing could be established without prima facie evidence that stated price is
below cost. In the said case, ONGC floated a tender in 2012 to provide a range of engineering and
technical services oil and gas exploration activities. The complainant, HLS Asia, claimed the contract
was won by Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd because the rates quoted were ridiculously low. However,
the complainant could not substantiate its claim that Schlumberger's quote was below cost.
Consequently, absence of evidence closed the matter without considering the market dominance of the
winning bidder.

8. RKG Hospitalities Private Limited vs Oravel Stays Private Ltd.


Where informant hotel filed information against OYO which provides budget accommodation to
customers through online booking under brand-name 'OYO Rooms' alleging contravention of provisions
of section 4, it was held that OYO might be a significant player in relevant market for franchising
services for budget hotels in India but it did not hold a dominant position and terms and conditions of
agreement entered into by hotel owners to utilize know-how and be listed on OYO platform or any
other online website, as may be expressly permitted by OYO in writing was not unfair, as alleged in
information and, therefore, alleged contravention of provisions of section 4 against OYO was not made
out.

9. Cadd Systems & Services P Ltd. vs CCI (Delhi HC)


Orders passed by CCI cannot be called into question on account of any vacancy or any defect in
constitution; notwithstanding, that a judicial member is required to be appointed to CCI, orders passed
by CCI pending such appointment cannot be called into question.

10. CCI vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. (SC)
An Act to provide for, keeping in view of the economic development of the country, the establishment
of a Commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain
competition in markets, to protect the interest of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on
by other participants in market, in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

11. CCI vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. & Anr. (SC)
Section 5(a) A combination is formed if the acquisition by one person or enterprise of control, shares,
voting rights or assets of another person or enterprise subject to certain threshold requirement that is
minimum asset valuation or turn over within or outside India.
Section 5(b): The combination is formed if the acquisition of control by a person over enterprise when
such person has already acquired direct or indirect control over another enterprise engaged in the
production, distribution or payment of a similar or identical or substitutable good provided that the
exigencies provided in section 5(b) in terms of asset or turnover are met.
Section 5(c) Merger and amalgamation are also within the ambit of combination. The enterprise
remaining after merger or amalgamation subject to a minimum threshold requirement in terms of
assets or turnover is covered within the purview of section 5(c).

12. SCM Solifert Limited & Anr. Vs. CCI (SC)


Section 6(2): The proposal to enter into combination is required to be notified to the CCI before
entering into the combination. The combination cannot be entered into and shall come into effect
before order is passed by Commission or lapse of certain time from date of notice is also apparent from
the terminology used in section 6(2A) which provides that no combination shall come into effect until
210 days have passed from the date of notice or passing of orders under section 31 by CCI, whichever
is earlier. The provisions made in Regulation 5(8) also buttress the aforesaid conclusion. Notice of
Section 6(2) is to be given prior to consummation of the acquisition. Ex post facto notice is not
contemplated under the provisions of section 6(2). Same would be in violation of the provisions of the
Act.
In case combination is to be notified ex post facto for approval, it would defeat the very intendment of
the provisions of the Act.

13. In Re. Independent Media Trust (CCI)


The ability to exercise decisive control over the management and affairs of the target company
amounts to control for the purposes of the Competition Act, 2002.

14. Dinkar Kumar vs UoI (Delhi HC)


Writ u/a 226 though not barred by the Competition Act was not maintainable in view of remedy of
appeal to SC available u/s 53T.

15. Google Inc. & Ors. Vs CCI (Delhi HC)


CCI has power to review or recall order u/s 26(1) but within certain parameters and subject to certain
restrictions.

16. M/s Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited v. M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (CCI)
Predatory pricing, providing more incentives and discounts to customers and drivers compared to the
revenue earned resulted in ousting the existing players out of the market and created entry barriers for
the potential players against Section 4. The quantity of resources and the dependence of the consumer
in the relevant market with no substitute are relevant factors to be taken into consideration when
looking for acts in violation of Section 4.

17. Ravinder Pal Singh vs BPTP Ltd. & Ors (CCI)


The relevant market is identified by ascertaining either the geographical or the product market.
Consequently, identification of the relevant market itself is a contentious issue and CCI identifies
relevant market as a preliminary point. Being a popular player in the relevant market alone would not
be enough to prove dominance if there are more players in the market.

18. M/s Jasper lnfotech (P) Ltd (Snapdeal) v. Kaff Appliances (India) P. Ltd. (CCI)
The display of products at prices less than that determined by the dealers/distributors, hinders their
ability to compete and is thus a violation of Section 3(4)(e) read with 3(1) of the Act. Similarly,
imposition of restrictions on the dealers to deal with competing brands in the market and thereby
restricting the inter-brand competition too is a breach of Section 3(4) with section 3(1) of the Act.

Parties in CCI are Informant and Opposite Parties (OP)


Relevant Geographic Market: Market for Passenger cars
Relevant Market: India
Anti-Circumvention: The de minimis exemption is qualified by the ‘anti-circumvention rule’
contained in Regulation 5(9) of the Combination Regulations which states that in the event that any
assets are being transferred to the target enterprise for the purpose of the proposed combination,
then the value of assets and turnover of the transferor enterprise(s) will be attributed to that of the
transferee enterprise.
Gun-jumping: The practice of actualizing a transaction before receiving the statutory clearance from
the competition authority, or unauthorized co-ordination between the merging parties prior to
approval, is referred to as ‘jumping the gun’ or “gun-jumping”.

You might also like