{"id":183484,"date":"2018-01-23T11:10:56","date_gmt":"2018-01-23T05:40:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=183484"},"modified":"2018-01-23T11:10:56","modified_gmt":"2018-01-23T05:40:56","slug":"case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/","title":{"rendered":"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect"},"content":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India:<\/strong> The Commission recently passed an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding a complaint filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 wherein the informant alleged that the opposing party (OP) had contravened Section 4 of the Competition Act.<\/p>\n

The informant was the Karta of an HUF and the OP was a private real estate development company. The facts of the case are that the informant had come across an advertisement by the OP about them developing a residential layout at a certain area in Bengaluru which was supposed to have various amenities such as a park, swimming pool etc. The informant, being interested in the project, paid a part of the consideration amount in cash to the OP who ended up executing the agreement a few days later on the names of some 3rd party people, who the OP intimated to the informant, were the registered land owners. Following this, when the time came for the execution of the sale deed of the residential plot, the OP refused to agree to the informant\u2019s term of including the OP\u2019s name and of him having paid the entire consideration amount. The informant was rather coerced into executing the sale deed without consideration to his terms. Further more, even after the sale deed had been executed, the OP had yet to provide the amenities which were previously promised to the informant owing which the informant was forced to keep the plot vacant. The informant also came to know that the land was provided to the original owner on account of him being an SC for free, a part of which was further sold by the concerned to some other part and which consequently came to the hands of the registered owners with whom the OP had only entered into a development agreement. It was also brought to the notice of the informant that the original owner had filed for cancellation of the sale under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The problems that were being faced by the informant were also being faced by many other purchasers of the land.<\/p>\n

The informant hence contended that the OP had misused his dominant position by misleading the purchasers and making them enter into agreements whereby they would have to adhere to the dictated terms of the OP.<\/p>\n

The Commission observed that this was a case of fraudulent sale of land and revolved around issues such as corruption, money laundering, unfair practices etc. and hence, didn\u2019t warrant the intervention of the Commission for abusive conduct of the OP under Section 4 of the Act. The Commission also acknowledged that even though the Agreement and the Sale Deed had been entered into before the Act came into effect, it could still be examined under the provisions of the Act as the effect of the agreements had been continuing till the present date. The Commission still went on to examine whether the case would stand even if the conduct was to be examined as an abusive one. The Commission held that the OP didn\u2019t stand at a dominant position in the relevant market which was ascertained to be that of \u201cprovision of services for development and sale of residential plots in Bengaluru\u201d, since there were other real estate developers offering residential plots in the relevant market and which were fierce competitors to the OP. [Indudhar M. Patil v. DS-Max Properties Private Limited, Case No. 64 of 2017, order dated 04.01.2018]<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India: The Commission recently passed an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding a complaint filed <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":76441,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[27454],"class_list":["post-183484","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-dominant"],"yoast_head":"\nCase can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Commission of India: The Commission recently passed an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding a complaint filed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-01-23T05:40:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/\",\"name\":\"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-01-23T05:40:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"width\":1329,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect","og_description":"Competition Commission of India: The Commission recently passed an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding a complaint filed","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-01-23T05:40:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/","name":"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","datePublished":"2018-01-23T05:40:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","width":1329,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/23\/case-can-examined-competition-act-even-agreements-question-executed-commencement-act-provided-agreements-force-act-come-effect\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case can be examined under Competition Act even if agreements in question executed before commencement of Act, provided agreements are in force after the Act having come into effect"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":200450,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/21\/cci-dismisses-the-allegation-of-anti-competitive-practice-against-timex-group\/","url_meta":{"origin":183484,"position":0},"title":"CCI dismisses the allegation of \u2018anti-competitive\u2019 practice against Timex Group","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital, Chairperson and Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta and G.P. Mittal, Members, while addressing information being filed under Section 19(1)(a) for contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, found no prima facie case made out.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":199626,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/04\/competition-act-2002-not-to-be-misunderstood-with-consumer-protection-act-1986\/","url_meta":{"origin":183484,"position":1},"title":"Competition Act, 2002 not to be misunderstood with\u00a0 Consumer Protection Act, 1986","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): A Four member bench comprising of Sudhir Mital, Chairperson and Augustine Peter, UC Nahta, members and GP Mitta, J., directed for a matter to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 due to the dispute falling under the arena of a consumer\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197217,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/19\/existence-of-an-agreement-is-a-sine-qua-non-to-prove-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-2002\/","url_meta":{"origin":183484,"position":2},"title":"Existence of an \u2018agreement\u2019 is a sine qua non to prove contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): A four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahata and G.P. Mittal, Members, directed closure of the matter alleging contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002, by the Opposite Party 1 (OP 1)- Panchsheel\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":197303,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/21\/section-4-of-the-competition-act-does-not-contemplate-collective-dominance-case-of-contravention-not-established-against-ola-uber\/","url_meta":{"origin":183484,"position":3},"title":"Section 4 of the Competition Act does not contemplate \u2018Collective Dominance\u2019; case of contravention not established against Ola, Uber","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):\u00a0 A four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahata, Members, held that opposite parties, \u2018Ola\u2019 (OP 1) and \u2018Uber\u2019 (OP 2) did not contravene either Section 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The informant- \u2018Meru\u2019\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203974,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/20\/cci-dismissed-the-allegations-of-abuse-of-dominance-and-cartelisation-in-light-of-competitive-forces-prevailing\/","url_meta":{"origin":183484,"position":4},"title":"CCI dismisses the allegations of abuse of dominance and cartelisation in light of competitive forces prevailing","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The 3-Member Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson), Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), while pronouncing an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, dismissed the case in light of no contravention being found as alleged of the provisions of Sections 3 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200633,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/25\/agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci\/","url_meta":{"origin":183484,"position":5},"title":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India(CCI): A four-member bench comprising of Sudhir Mital, Chairperson and Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahata and Justice G.P. Mittal, Members closed a matter filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against the U.P. Housing and Development Board (Opposite Party). The informant was allotted one LIG flat\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183484","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183484"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183484\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/76441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183484"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183484"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183484"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}