Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)Section 54 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Physical Research Laboratory vs K.G. Sharma on 8 April, 1997
OP has further relied on order of the Commission in Case No. 19 of 2019,
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Physical Research
Laboratories vs. K.G. Sharma (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1855), the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court's decision in UOI vs. CCI & Ors. (AIR 2012 Delhi 66) to establish that
the activity relating to extraction of Sillimanite is a sovereign function and
therefore, OP cannot be held as an 'enterprise' under the provisions of the Act.
Belaire Owners' Association vs Dlf Limited, Huda & Ors. Supplementary ... on 3 January, 2013
40. OP has stated that KMML, despite being smaller, has gained market share which
completely refutes the finding of dominance of IREL based on market share. OP
submitted that the DG failed to consider that IREL's market shares have been
consistently reducing, while KMML's market share increased significantly
. OP further stated that consistent reduction
in the market share indicates that OP does not have control akin to that of a dominant
enterprise, which can influence the market in its own favour. Furthermore, the
market share of an entity cannot be a definitive and exclusive indicator of its
dominance and the market share data in the DG Report is non reliable. Citing factors
under Section 19(4) of the Act, OP has averred that even assuming that the 'relevant
market' has been defined correctly by the DG, the market share of IREL cannot be
said to be an indicator of its dominance. OP has relied on orders passed by the
Commission in Belaire Owner's Association vs. DLF and Ors (2011 SCC Online
CCI 189) and HT Media Limited vs. Super Cassettes Industries Limited (2014 SCC
Online CCI 120) to substantiate the argument that market share is not a conclusive
determinant of the position of dominance of an enterprise.
Jsw Paints Private Limited vs Asian Paints Limited on 14 January, 2020
65. OP has submitted that there has been no imposition of unfair or discriminatory terms
by it. The mining and extraction of BSM is highly regulated and the quantity of
Sillimanite extracted also depends on the natural mineral content of the mined
product and therefore, there is no certainty with respect to the quantity of Sillimanite
that would be available at the end of the extraction process. The customers remained
free to purchase Sillimanite from any source and are not bound to source Sillimanite
from only OP. OP did not impose any terms that might reduce the consumer choice
or even restrict customers from purchasing Sillimanite or its substitutes. The
increase in import of Sillimanite and its substitutes is evidence that the customers
of Sillimanite are increasingly relying upon imports and can meet their demands
through other alternatives. Further, OP has submitted that the DG should have
undertaken an effects-based analysis under the Act and appreciated that there was
no harm caused to competition or to consumers due to its conduct. The OP has
relied on decisions of the Commission in JSW Paints Ltd. vs. Asian Paints Ltd.
(Case No. 36 of 2019 and Case No. 17 of 2021), Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
vs. CCI & Ors. (Case No. 22 of 2010), Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 03 of 2010), Explosive
Manufacturers Welfare Association vs. Coal India Ltd. & it's Officers (Case No. 4
of 2010) to buttress the arguments that effect based approach keeping in view the
market dynamics and reasonable justifications are required while analyzing the
allegedly abusive conduct.
Pandrol Rahee Technologies (Pvt.) ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ... on 7 October, 2011
65. OP has submitted that there has been no imposition of unfair or discriminatory terms
by it. The mining and extraction of BSM is highly regulated and the quantity of
Sillimanite extracted also depends on the natural mineral content of the mined
product and therefore, there is no certainty with respect to the quantity of Sillimanite
that would be available at the end of the extraction process. The customers remained
free to purchase Sillimanite from any source and are not bound to source Sillimanite
from only OP. OP did not impose any terms that might reduce the consumer choice
or even restrict customers from purchasing Sillimanite or its substitutes. The
increase in import of Sillimanite and its substitutes is evidence that the customers
of Sillimanite are increasingly relying upon imports and can meet their demands
through other alternatives. Further, OP has submitted that the DG should have
undertaken an effects-based analysis under the Act and appreciated that there was
no harm caused to competition or to consumers due to its conduct. The OP has
relied on decisions of the Commission in JSW Paints Ltd. vs. Asian Paints Ltd.
(Case No. 36 of 2019 and Case No. 17 of 2021), Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
vs. CCI & Ors. (Case No. 22 of 2010), Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 03 of 2010), Explosive
Manufacturers Welfare Association vs. Coal India Ltd. & it's Officers (Case No. 4
of 2010) to buttress the arguments that effect based approach keeping in view the
market dynamics and reasonable justifications are required while analyzing the
allegedly abusive conduct.
Explosive Manufacturers Welfare ... vs Coal India Limited And Its Officers Main ... on 26 July, 2011
65. OP has submitted that there has been no imposition of unfair or discriminatory terms
by it. The mining and extraction of BSM is highly regulated and the quantity of
Sillimanite extracted also depends on the natural mineral content of the mined
product and therefore, there is no certainty with respect to the quantity of Sillimanite
that would be available at the end of the extraction process. The customers remained
free to purchase Sillimanite from any source and are not bound to source Sillimanite
from only OP. OP did not impose any terms that might reduce the consumer choice
or even restrict customers from purchasing Sillimanite or its substitutes. The
increase in import of Sillimanite and its substitutes is evidence that the customers
of Sillimanite are increasingly relying upon imports and can meet their demands
through other alternatives. Further, OP has submitted that the DG should have
undertaken an effects-based analysis under the Act and appreciated that there was
no harm caused to competition or to consumers due to its conduct. The OP has
relied on decisions of the Commission in JSW Paints Ltd. vs. Asian Paints Ltd.
(Case No. 36 of 2019 and Case No. 17 of 2021), Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
vs. CCI & Ors. (Case No. 22 of 2010), Pandrol Rahee Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 03 of 2010), Explosive
Manufacturers Welfare Association vs. Coal India Ltd. & it's Officers (Case No. 4
of 2010) to buttress the arguments that effect based approach keeping in view the
market dynamics and reasonable justifications are required while analyzing the
allegedly abusive conduct.