Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. Under the provisions of Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) Mr. Dalip Singh Arshi has filed the information in the instant case. The case pertains to the alleged abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Party No. 1 with respect to its residential project Rose Villas/Lotus Floors in Aerens Jai City, Jagadhari, Yamunanagar in the state of Haryana. The Opposite Party No. 2 and the Opposite Party No. 3 (the officials of the Opposite Party No. 1) have been made proforma party to the case. 2. As per the information, the Informant was allotted one full tower bearing the number F-15 consisting of Ground Floor, First Floor, and Second Floor in the aforesaid project of the Opposite Party No. 1 in January, 2011 for a total consideration of rupees fifty one lakhs. 25% of the total consideration i.e., rupees twelve lakhs seventy five thousand has been paid at the time of booking of the complex. As per the project map and brochures, the allotted tower was to be park facing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
Order under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present information under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe ActŸ) was filed by Indian Exhibition Industry Association (œthe informantŸ) against Ministry of Commerce and Industry (œOP 1Ÿ) and Indian Trade Promotion Organization (œOP 2Ÿ/ ITPO) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. The Commission after considering the entire material available on record vide its order dated 06.05.2013 passed under section 26(1) of the Act, directing the DG to cause an investigation to be made into the matter and to submit a report. Brief facts of the Case 2. The informant is an association of exhibition organisers/ venue owners/ service providers, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the objectives of inter alia promoting development of Trade Fairs and Exhibition Industry and to support its orderly growth. 3. OP 1 is respons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information has been filed by TDI Fun Republic Shop Owner Welfare Association, through its President, Shri Amardeep Kohli (hereinafter referred to as the œInformant?) on 30.01.2014 under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) against M/s E-City Property Management and Services Pvt. Ltd. [EPMS] (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 1) ,Shri Vikas Ladhe [of EPMS] (Opposite Party No. 2), M/s Tyagi Anand Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 3), and M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 4), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by the Opposite Parties. 2. As per the information, Informant is a registered Welfare Association representing the shop owners of TDI Fun Republic Mall, having its office at Shop No. F-21, first floor, TDI Fun Republic, Moti Nagar, Main Najafgarh Road, Old Natraj Cinema Building, New Delhi. The informant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The crux of the allegations of the present matter is that the State Bank of India (the Opposite Party or SBI) has been imposing arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair conditions on its car loan borrowers which is in contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act). 2. Facts The facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under: 2.1 As per the information, Mr. Ashok R. Mansata (œthe InformantŸ) is the President of œConcern for CitizensŸ, a non-profit voluntary organization having its office at Kolkata and has been working for the cause of consumers. The Opposite Party is a public sector scheduled commercial bank having its registered office at Mumbai and branches spread across the country. Though, the allegations of the Informant pertain to the alleged unfair terms and conditions of car loan documents of SBI in general, the Jeevan Deep Branch, Kolkata of SBI has also been made a proforma party to the case. 2.2 The Informant has alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. This order shall dispose of the application filed under section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe ActŸ) by the original informants (œthe applicantŸ) as well as an application moved by Shri Brij Raj Singh under sections 33 and 42 of the Act. Subsequently, Shri Brij Raj Singh sought withdrawal of the said application vide his application dated 03.01.2014. The Commission, however, vide its order dated 16.01.2014 dismissed his application under only section 33 of the Act as withdrawn. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present applications by the parties may be briefly noted. 3. The original informants in the instant application stated that the application is being filed to bring to the notice of the Commission the contravention of the Commissions order dated 31.01.2012 wherein the Commission had passed a œcease and desistŸ order under section 27 of the Act which was stated to be later confirmed and upheld by the Competition Appellate Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. In Case No. 07 of 2012, an information under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (œthe ActŸ) was filed against M/s Google Inc. and M/s Google India Private Limited (collectively œGoogleŸ) by M/s Consim Info Private Limited, alleging that Google runs its core business of online search and search advertising in a discriminatory manner, causing harm to advertisers and indirectly to consumers and creating an uneven playing field by favouring its own services and of its vertical partners, by manipulating the search algorithms. It was also alleged that Google provides a number of vertical search services like YouTube, Google News, Google Maps etc. and in order to promote its vertical search services, it mixes many of vertical results into organic search results. The effect of such manipulation of results was that Googles vertical search partners will appear predominantly when an internet user searches for some information, irrespective of whether the search...
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 GHCL Limited (œthe informantŸ) against M/s Coal India Limited (œthe opposite party No. 1Ÿ/CIL) and M/s Western Coalfields Limited (œthe opposite party No. 2Ÿ/WCL) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. 2. The informant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is inter alia stated to be engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soda ash, a basic industrial raw-material predominantly used in manufacture of glass (flat/ container), detergent, chemicals, silicates and a host of other basic chemicals. The informant commenced its commercial production of soda ash in 1986 at its manufacturing facility at Sutrapada, Distt. Somnath Gir (earlier in Junagadh District) in the State of Gujarat. 3. It is stated in the information that the informant, which requires coal for running...
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 M/s Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. (the Informant) against M/s JCB India Ltd. (the Opposite Party No. 1) and M/s J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. (the Opposite Party No. 2) [collectively hereinafter to be referred as JCB] alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. 2.Factual matrix of the matter, as unfolded in the information, is stated below: 2.1. The Informant, a small scale industry company, is stated to be engaged in manufacturing of low cost backhoe loaders, called Bull Smart, a light construction equipment. The Opposite Party No.1 is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in New Delhi, is stated to be Indias largest manufacturer of construction equipments and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 1 has been engaged in manufacturing of 21 different co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The information in the present case was filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, (œAct?) alleging violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by the Opposite Parties (œOPs?) with regard to dealership of Nissan cars. 2. Informant No. 1 is a private limited company having its showroom in Ludhiana(Informant No. 1 along with its directors - Informants No. 2 and 3 are collectively referred to as œInformants?). Opposite Party No.1 (œOP1?) is engaged in the design, manufacture, assembly and/or sale of motor vehicles under the brand name of Nissan. Opposite Party No. 2 (œOP2?) is a service partner of OP1 in the field of marketing, sales, after-sales and dealer development operations of Nissan vehicles in India. Opposite Party No. 3 (œOP3?) is an authorised dealer of OP1 for the districts of Ludhiana and Jalandhar in Punjab. 3. It is averred that in 2009, OP1 invited invitations for the dealership of Nissan. Pursuant to the execut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Competition Commission of India CCI
1. The present information has been filed on behalf of a partnership firm in the name of M/s Shri Revanasiddeshwar Automobiles (SRA) by one Shri Maheshwar V. Hiremath - describing himself as Power of Attorney holder of SRA (the Informant) - under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) against the Opposite Parties (OPs) mentioned above for their alleged anti-competitive conduct. 2. Factual matrix, as culled out from the information and the documents filed therewith, may be briefly noted. 3. As per the information, Shri Maheshwar V. Hiremath is a relative of Hiremath family of Chikkodi in Belgaum district of Karnataka and in partnership with OP 3 to OP 6 in SRA. 4. It is stated that all the relative members of the Hiremath family along with Shri Maheshwar took the decision to establish a Spare and Service Point (SSP) of OP 1 in the name and style of M/s Shri Revansiddeshwar Automobiles in the regional and geographical market of Chikkodi. Accordingly, for customary ausp...
Tag this Judgment!