Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on : Apr-02-2014
..... with large downstream ampoule manufacturing company. it was, therefore, urged that the appellant was holding a dominant position inasmuch the appellant had a dominant presence in the indian market having a market share of about 67% in 2009. 10. the informant complained of anti-competitive practices against the appellant by two types - (a) ..... also unnecessary unless it could be shown that the downstream market was affected because of the profits earned by jv schott kaisha. after having quoted from robinson patman act, article 82 (c) of the ec treaty and after correctly mentioning that for attracting the vice of discrimination in pricing, the two principles - (i) ..... 45. this brings us to observe the eu and american jurisprudence in this regard. smt. geeta gouri has very specifically referred to the robinson- patman act of us, where the provisions provide that discrimination in prices between different purchasers of the same products is condemned, where the effect of such discrimination may be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on : May-19-2014
..... allottees is to get the aba and the clauses therein modified. this simply cannot be done on the basic principles of the contract act. the competition act nowhere provides for amending the agreement and re-writing the contracts, particularly when those agreements are prior and existing to the promulgation of sections 3 and 4 ..... condition that the colonizer shall not construct the building beyond 60 meters without submitting the structural drawing duly approved from the reputed institutes mentioned above. accordingly, indian institute of technology, delhi have issued the certificate by reviewing the designs and drawing". 121. from these submissions, at least one thing is clear ..... the dg also referred to the annual report of the appellant for the year 2009, in which it was mentioned that appellant's dominant position in indian homes segment was established due to its trusted brand; its superior execution track record; pioneered townships and group housing in india; complete offering of super .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Appellate Tribunal
Decided on : Jan-17-2014
..... that they were not heard properly. they also raised an issue that a notice could not be issued to the respondents under the provisions prior to the amendment of the competition act, which came only on 20th may, 2009. similarly, ftpgi also filed its reply, on more or less same lines. 15. the appellant sunil ..... the updf and the three amongst themselves represented producers and distributors of almost 100% of hindi films produced/ supplied/distributed in india and thereby exercised control over indian film industry. 4. it was further alleged that vide notice dated 27.03.2009, all producers and distributors including even those who were not the members ..... cases, the commission rightly came to the conclusion that there was no question of any infringement of any rights that producers and distributors had under the copyright act, 1957 arise. the commission rightly concluded that the multiplexes owners were also not infringing the rights of the producers/ distributors on the other hand, they were .....
Tag this Judgment!