Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Adcept Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited (Bccl) on 8 May, 2013

Shri Rajat Verma vs Public Works (B&R) Department ... on 9 July, 2018

"....Generally, as per the scheme laid down by the Act, the dominant player (or enterprise) is the seller of goods/services who/which adversely affects the buying side i.e. the consumer. In this case, the buyer has been contended to be dominant and affecting the competition on selling side of the market (by excluding some of the players, informant in this case). Such cases of „buyer power‟ or buyer being dominant and abusing its dominant position to suppress competition in the downstream market have been assessed by competition regulators in other jurisdictions like UK (Office of Fair Trading) and EU (European Commission). In the case of buyer power it is the procurement markets, not the supply markets, which have to be defined. The demand-side oriented market concept is applied inversely in this context. From the suppliers point of view the market definition is thus based on their ability to switch to alternative sales opportunities. The definition focuses on the products the supplier is Case No. 70 of 2014 Page 15 of 19 offering or would be able to offer without any significant problems. Therefore, what needs to be seen in this case is that whether the OP, if at all it is found to be dominant in the relevant market defined by the Commission, had been able to adversely affect the competition in the supply side of the market."
Competition Commission of India Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Cupid Limited vs Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare ... on 26 December, 2018

19. It is noted that the Commission has previously decided cases involving allegations of abuse of buyer's power. These include Case No. 70 of 2014 (Shri Rajat Verma v. Public Works (B&R) Department Government of Haryana & others), Case No. 16 of 2013 (Adcept Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v Bharat Coking Coal Limited) and Case No. 80 of 2015 (V.E. Commercial Vehicles Limited v UPSRTC) wherein the Commission delineated the relevant market by applying the concept of 'demand side substitutability' inversely i.e. by assessing the availability of substitutes for suppliers and their ability to switch to alternative sales opportunities both in terms of products as well as geographies. On applying the same concept in the instant case, it is noted that the suppliers of the product 'male condoms', including the Informant, have the option to supply their product either to the Government under its free supply / social marketing programme or in the commercial market anywhere in India or even export the product. Thus, the relevant product market cannot be restricted to the narrow market of 'male condoms supplied to OP-2'. Given the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to consider the broader relevant product market in the instant case i.e. 'the market for male condoms'. Further, since the product can be supplied anywhere in India, the relevant geographic market for the purposes of assessing dominance in this case is the 'territory of India'. Therefore, the relevant market is delineated as 'the market for male condoms in India'.
Competition Commission of India Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Indian National Shipowners’ ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 2 August, 2019

108. The Commission was confronted with a similar issue in the case of AdCept Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, (Case No. 16 of 2013, decided on 08.05.2013). After considering the facts and law at hand, the Commission held that in cases which concern allegations against a dominant buyer/ buyer power, it is the procurement market, not the supply market which has to be defined. In such kind of markets demand-side oriented market concept is applied inversely and, from supplier's point of view, the market definition is based on their ability to switch to alternative sales opportunities. In other words, it means the ability of the supplier to switch to alternative sales opportunities as such alternative buyers would be deemed to be posing competitive constraints on the incumbent.
Competition Commission of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Indian National Shipowners’ ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... on 12 June, 2018

31. The determining factor for defining a relevant product market is demand side interchangeability/substitutability of the product, which is to be ascertained on the basis of the factors enumerated under Section 19(7) of the Act such as physical characteristics/ end-use of goods, price of goods or service, consumer preference, exclusion of in-house production, existence of specialised producer, and classification of industrial products. Generally, the alleged dominant player / enterprise is the seller of goods/ services which adversely affects either the buying side i.e. its consumer or the players in its own relevant market i.e. its competitors. However, in the present case, the Opposite Party is the procurer of services and is alleged to be affecting the selling side of the market i.e. the supplier of services of OSVs/ member companies of the Informant. The Commission was confronted with a similar issue in the case of AdCept Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, (Case No. 16 of 2013, decided on 08.05.2013). After considering the facts and law at hand, the Commission held that in cases which concern allegations against a dominant buyer/ buyer power, it is the procurement market, not the supply market which has to be defined. The demand-side oriented market concept is applied inversely and, from supplier's point of view, the market definition is based on their ability to switch to alternative sales opportunities. The definition focuses on the products offered by the supplier or would be able to offer to alternative buyers without any significant problems.
Competition Commission of India Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Ambalal V. Patel vs Central Medical Service Society & ... on 10 February, 2020

10. For the purpose of analysing present case under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the first requirement is to delineate the relevant market as per Section 2(r) of the Act. The Commission noted that the Informant has not delineated the relevant market in which the OPs are alleged to be dominant and abusing their position of dominance. The Commission has previously decided cases involving allegations of abuse of buyer's power 1, wherein, the Commission delineated the relevant market by applying the concept of 'demand side substitutability' inversely i.e. by assessing the availability of substitutes for suppliers and their ability to switch to alternative sales 1 Case No. 70 of 2014 (Shri Rajat Verma v. Public Works (B&R) Department Government of Haryana & others); Case No. 16 of 2013 (Adcept Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v Bharat Coking Coal Limited); Case no. 45 of 2018 (Cupid Limited vs. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Central Medical Services Society); Case No. 80 of 2015 (V.E. Commercial Vehicles Limited v UPSRTC); etc. Case No. 02 of 2020 4 opportunities both in terms of products as well as geographies. Hence, the relevant product market may be delineated as "Market for procurement of Anti-TB drugs" in case of OP-1 and "Market for procurement of HIV drugs" in case of OP-3. With regard to the relevant geographic market, the Commission observes that in the instant case the suppliers of health sector goods/drugs can participate in the tenders from all across India and can provide their services without getting constrained by regional geographical barriers. Therefore, the relevant geographic market is "the Territory of India". Accordingly, the relevant market in the instant case is "the Market for procurement of Anti-TB drugs in the Territory of India"
Competition Commission of India Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Deepak Sultania vs Security Printing And Minting ... on 12 November, 2020

16. The Informant delineated the relevant market in the instant case to be the "market for procurement of bearings in the Territory of India". The Informant has relied upon Case No. 41 of 2020 Page 5 of 10 previously decided cases of the Commission involving allegations of abuse of buyer's power. These include Case No. 70 of 2014 titled Shri Rajat Verma v. Public Works (B&R) Department Government of Haryana & others, Case No. 16 of 2013 titled Adcept Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Case No. 80 of 2015 titled V.E. Commercial Vehicles Limited v. UPSRTC wherein, the Commission delineated the relevant market by applying the concept of 'demand side substitutability' inversely i.e. by assessing the availability of substitutes for suppliers and their ability to switch to alternative sales opportunities both in terms of products as well as geographies.
Competition Commission of India Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1