Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) by Mr. Ashish Ahuja (the Informant) against Snapdeal.com through Mr. Kunal Bahl, CEO (the Opposite Party No. 1/ Snapdeal.com) and SanDisk Corporation through Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Country Manager, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 2/ SanDisk) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the Act. 2. Informant is engaged in selling of various products like pen drives, hard disks, laptops etc. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 Snapdeal.com is an online portal (marketplace) wherein different sellers sell their wares by showcasing their products on the portal for which the web portal charges a commission depending upon the product category. It has tie-up with cargo/ logistic companies and they pick up the ordered consignment from the sellers place and deliver it at the buyers address for a fee and the amount charged is credited to the sellers account de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. Information in this case has been filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, œthe Act) by Mr. Samundra Sain (hereinafter, œthe Informant) alleging that M/s Hyundai Company Limited (hereinafter, œOP 1Ÿ), M/s Nimbus Motors (hereinafter, œOP 2Ÿ), M/s Himgiri Car Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, œOP 3Ÿ) and M/s Pawan Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, œOP 4Ÿ) have contravened the provisions of the Act in respect to provision of car maintenance and repairing services. 2. The Informant is stated to be the owner of a Hyundai i10 model car manufactured by OP 1. The OP 1 is a registered company, inter alia, engaged in manufacturing of cars in the brand name of Hyundai and sale them through its authorised dealers across the country. The OP 2, OP 3 and OP 4 are the authorized dealers/service centres of OP 1. 3. Briefly, the Informant stated that he had purchased a Hyundai i10 model car of OP 1 through OP 2 on 05.06.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information was filed by Mr. Budh Ram Mahala, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Doomra, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as œthe Informant) under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) against Mr. Ramgopal Jangid (hereinafter referred to as œOPŸ), alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of the Act with respect to carrying out operation of the educational institutions (hereinafter referred to as œOP InstitutionsŸ). 2. Briefly, as per the information, the OP, the Ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Doomra, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, was running various educational institutions in District Jhunjhunu, namely Shrimati Jankidevi Shikshan Prashikhsan Mahavidyalay Doomra, Shrimati Jankidevi Mahila Mahavidyala Doomra, Bal Niketan Uchh Madhyamik Vidayalal Doomra, Gandhi Vidya Mandir Uchh Madhyamik Vidyalaya Mukundgarh and Mukundgarh Public School, Mukundgar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. Mr. Om Datt Sharma, the Managing Partner of M/s Kalpataru Enterprises, has filed the information in instant case under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe Act?) alleging that the Opposite Parties i.e., M/s Adidas AG, M/s Reebok International Limited and M/s Reebok India Company, as a group, have infringed the provisions of Section 4 of the Act with respect to sale of premium sports goods to it. 2. The Informant is stated to be engaged in the business of retailing of single brand sports goods on a franchisee model. The Opposite Party No. 1 is a listed German stock corporation and is the holding company of the Adidas Group. It has been engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing and marketing of sports and leisure goods including footwear, apparel, and equipment. The Opposite Party No. 2 is a USA based renowned manufacturer of sports goods such as shoes, apparel, accessories/equipments and casual footwear, apparel etc., for non-athletic use. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information is filed by M/s R and R Tech Mach Limited (hereinafter referred to as œInformant?) on 17.02.2014 under section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) against Shri Rama Raman, CEO of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as œOP 1?), Shri Krishnakumar Natarajan, Chairman of the National Association of Software and Services Company (hereinafter referred to as œOP 2?) and Shri B. Prasada Rao, Managing Director of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as œOP 3?) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of the Act. 2. The Informant has stated itself to be a company, with its registered office at 13 and 14 Prakash Apartments 5, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Informant is one of the allotees of the plots allotted for its corporate office by New Ohkla Industrial Development Authority (OP 1), which it had purchased during an auction fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe ActŸ) by M/s NexTenders (India) Private Limited (œthe informantŸ) against Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (œthe opposite party No.1Ÿ), Ministry of Commerce (œthe opposite party No.2Ÿ), National Informatics Centre (œthe opposite party No.3Ÿ/ NIC), National Informatics Services Inc. (œthe opposite party No.4Ÿ/ NICSI), M/s ITI Limited (œthe opposite party No.5Ÿ/ ITI) and M/s Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd (œthe opposite party No. 6Ÿ/ KEONICS) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of sections 4 of the Act. 2. Factual matrix, as culled out from the information and the documents filed therewith, may be briefly noted. 3. The informant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Mumbai. It is stated to be eng...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The information in this case has been filed under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe Act?). 2. The Informant is stated to be a registered educational trust under the Indian Trusts Act, 1982 and, inter alia, is engaged in the business of running schools/educational institutions in the brand name of œShri Ram Centennial School? and œShri Ram Global School?, etc. in different cities in India. The Opposite Party is also a registered educational trust and, inter alia, is engaged running schools/educational institutions in the brand name of œThe Sri Ram School? etc. in different cities in India. 3. The alleged dispute between the Informant and the Opposite Party seems to be related with the use of the words œShri RamŸ in the brand name of their schools. As per the information, both the parties belong to the same lineage of Shriram Family (a name of repute and incredible standing in the provision of educational services) and therefore a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) by Shri Vishal Gupta (the informant) against M/s Google Inc. (the opposite party No. 1), M/s Google Ireland Limited (the opposite party No. 2) and M/s Google India private Limited (the opposite party No. 3) [collectively Google hereinafter] alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. 2. As per the information, the informant, his family and associates own and manage Shyam Garment Group of Companies which includes M/s Shyam Garment Private Limited (SGL), M/s Delhi Call Centre Private Limited (DCL) and M/s Audney (Audney). Both SGL and DCL are stated to be incorporated under the provisions of the [Indian] Companies Act, 1956 whereas Audney is stated to be incorporated under the appropriate laws of Delaware, USA. The opposite party No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of USA; the opposite party No. 2 is a company incorporated under the laws of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. This case, filed under section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe Act), relates to the alleged abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Party No. 1 in allotment of commercial space in its project œAnsal Highway PlazaŸ, Jalandhar, Punjab. 2. The Opposite Party No. 1 is stated to be a well known real estate development company in India. The Opposite Party No. 2 is the Managing Director and the Opposite Party No. 3 is the Joint Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Opposite Party No. 1 and both are looking after the day-to-day functioning of the Opposite Party No. 1. 3. Factual matrix, as culled out from the information and the documents filed therewith, is briefly stated below: 3.1 It is revealed form the information that the Opposite Party No. 1 along with the land owners Dr. Gurpreet Kaur and Dr. Ranjeet [henceforth, the developer], through a œCollaboration AgreementŸ dated 25.11.04, have developed a shopping mall in the name o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
This common order shall govern the disposal of the informations filed in Case. Nos. 05, 07, 37 and 44 of 2013 as similar issues are involved in these cases. Facts 2. Facts, as stated in the informations, may be briefly noticed. Case No. 05 of 2013 3. The information in Case No. 05 of 2013 has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) by M/s Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited against M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (the opposite party No. 1/SECL) and M/s Coal India Ltd. (the opposite party No. 2/ CIL) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of sections 4 of the Act. 4. The informant has stated that that the SECL being the monopoly supplier was neither willing to negotiate the terms of coal supply agreement nor ensuring the supply obligations and therefore the terms and conditions of SECL were not fair and according to the object for which the informant was acquiring coal. 5. The informant also stated that the boilers of the powe...
Tag this Judgment!