| | |

Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors.

Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. Date of decision: 20th May, 2020 in W.P. (C) No. 1776/2016 and W.P.(C) No. 3556/2017 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Brief Facts: Petitioners, had developed an advance technology of manufacturing Bt. Cotton seeds which they licensed and…

|

Shanmugam vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.

Financial strength of a company, though relevant, cannot be the sole factor to determine dominant position of an enterprise. Providing free services cannot by itself raise competition concerns unless the same is offered by a dominant enterprise and is shown to be tainted with an anti-competitive objective of excluding competition/ competitors.

Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Somi Conveyor Beltings Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1416/2016] Together with Premier Rubber Mills vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 1969/2016] Decided on: April 11, 2017 Court: High Court of Delhi Facts In this case, Petitioners’ request for inspection of records and supply of certified copies of documents was…

|

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce vs. Kannada Grahakara Koota & Ors.

Citation: Appeal No. 13/2016 with I.A. No. 08/2017 Decided on: 10.04.2017 Court: Competition Appellate Tribunal Facts Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (Appellant/ KFCC) filed an appeal against the order passed by Competition Commission of India (“CCI“). CCI had imposed the penalty on Appellant and other two associations namely Karnataka Television Association (“KTVA“) and Kannada Film…

|

M/s. Mega Cab s Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Mega Cab s Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.1 (“Ola”) AND Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited (“Uber”) Facts: Informants in both cases (Meru, and Mega Cabs, collectively, “Informants”) had filed complaints under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act“) against the Opposite Parties…

Ericsson vs. CCI (Micromax & Intex SEP Row): Delhi High Court Refuses Stay Against Investigation by CCI

The Delhi High Court, yesterday, refused to stay an on-going investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) into alleged anti-competitive practices by Ericsson. The decision is an outcome of a writ petition (Ericsson vs CCI) filed by Ericsson challenging an order of the CCI directing the Director-General (DG) to investigate complaints filed by Micromax…

Internal Framework of CCI: How Director General and CCI Functions

Under Section 2(g) of the Competition Act, 2002, “Director General” means the Director General appointed under subsection (1) of section 16 and this may include any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Directors General appointed under that section. Under section 16(1) Central Government can appoint a Director General for the purposes of assisting the Competition Commission…