{"id":196837,"date":"2018-06-11T17:43:52","date_gmt":"2018-06-11T12:13:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=196837"},"modified":"2018-08-18T17:55:28","modified_gmt":"2018-08-18T12:25:28","slug":"bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/","title":{"rendered":"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India (CCI): <\/strong>The four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta, and G.P. Mittal, Members, ordered closure of the matter filed against BMW India Private Limited (OP-1) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging \u2018abuse of dominance\u2019.<\/p>\n

The brief facts of the matter state that \u2018Informant\u2019 was a dealer for selling BMW cars in the State of Gujarat and was continuing to be one for almost 9 years. The primary allegation which in accordance to the \u2018Informant\u2019 constitutes to \u2018abuse of dominant position\u2019 is that OP-1 abused their dominant position by selling their cars through dealers outside Gujarat to the customers based in the State of Gujarat. Another averment was that BMW India seems to have been carrying out a fraudulent\/illegal arrangement as no \u2018entry tax\u2019 is being paid on entering of the cars in the State of Gujarat from outside the State.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Commission on noting the stated allegations and facts, analysed the issue placed by the \u2018Informant\u2019 and concluded by stating that, BMW India had in advance, before the renewal of the agreement of dealership between the parties, sent a notice of \u2018non-renewal\u2019 which made the \u2018Informant\u2019 well aware of the expiry of the agreement and the fact that BMW India has negligible share in the passenger car segment in India clearly leads to BMW India not being a dominant player. Hence the Commission opined that nowhere OP-1 contravened Section 4 i.e \u2018abuse of dominant position\u2019\u00a0 and pronounced an order of closure under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. [Prasoli Motor Works (P) Ltd. v. BMW India (P) Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine CCI 39<\/b><\/a>, dated 30-05-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India (CCI): The four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta, and G.P. Mittal, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"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":[3881,2998,30427,30429,30428],"class_list":["post-196837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-abuse-of-dominance","tag-Agreement","tag-bmw","tag-dominant-player","tag-non-renewal"],"yoast_head":"\nBMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI | 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\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta, and G.P. Mittal,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-06-11T12:13:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-18T12:25:28+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=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\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\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/\",\"name\":\"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-06-11T12:13:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-18T12:25:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#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\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI\"}]},{\"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI | 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\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI","og_description":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta, and G.P. Mittal,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-06-11T12:13:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-18T12:25:28+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":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/","name":"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","datePublished":"2018-06-11T12:13:52+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-18T12:25:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#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\/06\/11\/bmw-india-not-being-a-dominant-player-did-not-contravene-section-4-of-the-competition-act-2002-cci\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI"}]},{"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"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":94381,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/23\/allegations-against-mercedes-benz-india-pvt-ltd-for-alleged-abuse-of-dominant-position-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":196837,"position":0},"title":"Allegations against Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. for alleged abuse of dominant position, dismissed","author":"Saba","date":"December 23, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):\u00a0CCI has dismissed allegations of abuse of dominant position against German luxury car manufacturer Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Earlier, an information was filed by Shree Hari Inn Pvt. Ltd. alleging that an authorised service centre of Mercedes in Gujarat was resorting to malpractices with regard\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":22412,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/10\/28\/case-against-facebook-and-google-for-abuse-of-dominance-closed-prima-facie\/","url_meta":{"origin":196837,"position":1},"title":"Case against Facebook and Google for abuse of dominance closed prima facie","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 28, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): Competition watchdog ordered to close a case filed against Facebook, Google and some online portals (\u201copposite parties\u201d) for alleged abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive conducts. The informant in this case was aggrieved by complaints filed on online electronic public fora by persons with whom\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":243222,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/02\/cci-does-integration-of-google-meet-with-gmail-amount-to-abuse-of-dominant-position-by-google-under-competition-act-commission-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":196837,"position":2},"title":"CCI | Does integration of Google Meet with Gmail amount to abuse of dominant position by Google under Competition Act? Commission answers","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members) dismissed the case of the informant who alleged that Google is abusing its dominant position by integrating Google Meet App into the Gmail App. Allegations | Abuse of a Dominant\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":18417,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/10\/13\/hyundai-motor-is-not-dominant-in-the-market-of-sports-multi-utility-vehicles-in-india-case-of-abuse-of-dominance-closed\/","url_meta":{"origin":196837,"position":3},"title":"Hyundai Motor is not dominant in the market of Sports\/ Multi Utility Vehicles in India, case of abuse of dominance closed","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 13, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): Already litigating before the Competition Appellate Tribunal, to avoid penalty imposed by CCI for abuse of dominance in spare part market, Hyundai got escape from examination of its conducts in market of Sports\/ Multi Utility Vehicles (SUV) under the provisions of section 4 of the\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":138361,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/22\/cci-introductory-offers-of-reliance-jio-does-not-amount-to-abuse-of-dominance-position\/","url_meta":{"origin":196837,"position":4},"title":"CCI: Introductory offers of Reliance Jio does not amount to abuse of dominance position","author":"Saba","date":"June 22, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued an order stating that Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (RJIL) introductory offers are not in contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The informant alleged that RJIL OP-1 has hidden objectives of abusing its dominant position by use\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":267693,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/01\/dlf-is-a-dominant-enterprise-in-developing-commercial-space-in-kolkata-competition-cci-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":196837,"position":5},"title":"DLF is a dominant enterprise in developing commercial space in Kolkata? CCI analyses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): On finding that DLF being a new entrant in developing commercial space in Kolkata and having only one property, Commission held that the same cannot be treated as a dominant enterprise which can operate independently of competitive forces. Instant information was filed under Section 19(1)(a)\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\/196837","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\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196837\/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=196837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}