Competition Commission of IndiaCompetition Commission’s Rulings on Competition & Antritrust Laws

October 24, 20150

Competition Commission of India denied to scan fixation of Electricity Tariffs and open access charges, case against Discoms closed  CCI :  CCI maintaining distance from the jurisdiction of electricity sector regulators State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) denied to examine fixation of electricity tariffs under the provisions of S. 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. [In re: Open Access Users Association and Tata Power Delhi Distribution, CCI 146; decided on 29.09.2015]

Antitrust case against Shikshantar School, Gurgaon is closed prima facie Competition Commission of India: CCI, not finding prima facie violation of S. 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, closed a case against Shikshantar School for alleged anti-competitive activities. The informant parents had alleged that after withdrawal of admission of their child the school was not refunding the fee paid by them for child’s education. [In re: Baby Nandini Garg and  Management of Shikshantar School, CCI 144; decided on 29.09.2015]

Director General cannot investigate on the issue not raised in the Information Competition Appellate Tribunal (CompAT): CompAT, in want of material evidence, set aside an order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce (APFCC) for contravention of S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (e.g. entering into anti-competitive agreements and cartels). CCI had imposed a penalty of Rs.12.89 lacs on APFCC for restricting exhibition of film produced by particular producer, for forcing its member to abide by its unfair rules and dictates. [Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce v. Cinergy Independent Film Service, Comp AT 719, decided on 14.10.2015]

Times of India is not dominant in Mumbai in the market for services of advertisement in English print media Competition Commission of India (CCI): Media giant Bennett Coleman’s daily the Times of India/Mumbai Times does not, for the purpose of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, enjoy dominant position in cosmopolitan city of Mumbai in the relevant market for services of procurement of advertisement space in English print media. [Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies v. Bennett, Coleman and Co., CCI 148, decided on 29.09.2015]

Hyundai Motor is not dominant in the market of Sports/ Multi Utility Vehicles in India, case of abuse of dominance closed
Competition Commission of India (CCI): Already litigating before the Competition Appellate Tribunal, to avoid penalty imposed by CCI for abuse of dominance in spare part market, Hyundai got escape from examination of its conducts in market of Sports/ Multi Utility Vehicles (SUV) under the provisions of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. [Arvind Sood v. Hyundai Motor India, CCI 147, decided on 29.09.2015]

Re-transmission of channels through Cable TV Networks” is a separate relevant Product Market Competition Commission of India: CCI in its closure order in a case against TN Cable TV Corporation for alleged abuse of dominance noted that there are different mechanisms for transmitting/ re-transmitting signals of TV channels e.g. Terrestrial, Cable TV (analog and digital), Direct To Home (DTH), Head-end In The Sky (HITS), Internet Protocol TV (IPTV) and Mobile TV etc. These platforms cannot be treated similar and can be divided in different market based on economic affordability and their reach to the masses. [Makkal Tholai Thodarpu Kuzhumam v.  Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation, CCI 145, decided on 29.09.2015]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Current day month ye@r *

© 2020-21 AMLEGALS Law Firm in Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Kolkata, New Delhi, Bengaluru for IBC, GST, Arbitration, Contract, Due Diligence, Corporate Laws, IPR, White Collar Crime, Litigation & Startup Advisory, Legal Advisory.


Disclaimer & Confirmation As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, law firms are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I AGREE” button below, user acknowledges the following:
    • there has been no advertisements, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
    • user wishes to gain more information about AMLEGALS and its attorneys for his/her own information and use;
  • the information about us is provided to the user on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at their own volition and any transmission, receipt or use of this site does not create any lawyer-client relationship; and that
  • We are not responsible for any reliance that a user places on such information and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused due to any inaccuracy in or exclusion of any information, or its interpretation thereof.
However, the user is advised to confirm the veracity of the same from independent and expert sources.