Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.88 seconds)Section 3 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Mcx Stock Exchange Ltd. & Ors vs National Stock Exchange Of India Ltd. & ... on 23 June, 2011
(xii) The Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has cited
the judgment of Competition Commission of India in MCX Stock
Exchange Limited v. National Stock Exchange of India (Case
Competition Appeal (AT) No. 19 & 20 of 2017
Page 21 of 53
No. 13 of 2009, pg. 18 of the Convenience Compilation of
Respondent No. 2), wherein the Commission concluded the
dominance of National Stock Exchange based on multiple factors
under section 19 (4) of the Act.
Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited And ... vs Cci And Anr. on 10 April, 2019
Delhi High Court has also observed in Mahindra Electric
Mobility v CCI & Anr. (2019 SCC Online Del 8032 at pg. 296 of
Convenience Compilation of Appellant) that there can be market
dominance by a few enterprises.
Section 2 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Competition Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Competition Commission Of India vs Steel Authority Of India & Anr on 9 September, 2010
(xiii) The use of words "an enterprise" in the Explanation (a) of
Section 4 definition of dominant position does not mean that only
one enterprise can be in dominant position, but implies that any
enterprise can be said to enjoy dominant position in market, when
it has ability to impose conditions or price which are unfair and
discriminatory as enumerated in section 4(2)(a) of the Act. Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Competition Commission
of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2010 10 SC 74] has
noted that the primary purpose of competition law is to remedy
some of those situations where activities of one or two firms lead to
breakdown of the free market.
Ramakant Kini vs L.H. Hiranandani Hospital . on 18 January, 2017
In the Raghavan Committee
Report (pp. 2-3 of the Convenience Compilation of Respondent No.
2, Dy. No. 31902 dated 6/12/2021) and the matter of Ramakant
Kini vs. Dr. L.H. Hiranandani (Case No. 139 of 2012, attached at
pp. 21-23 of the Convenience Compilation of Respondent No. 2,
Dy. No. 31902 dated 6/12/2021), it is held that dominance
requires market power to be substantial and durable. In the
present case, the market share of Ola reduced considerably upon
the entry of Uber into the market and therefore the pre-requisite of
dominance, that an enterprise can operate independent of the
market force, fails to be established in the present case.
1