{"id":200633,"date":"2018-08-25T18:03:14","date_gmt":"2018-08-25T12:33:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=200633"},"modified":"2018-12-19T11:59:30","modified_gmt":"2018-12-19T06:29:30","slug":"agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI"},"content":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India(CCI):<\/strong> 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).<\/p>\n

The informant was allotted one LIG flat developed by the Opposite Party (OP). The informant filed information under the abovesaid section alleging that the OP, in its project brochure, estimated the cost of the flat at Rs 11.75 lakhs. However, over a period of time, on one or the other pretext, the OP, with malafide intentions, increased the cost of the flat. Resultantly, the informant had to pay over Rs 15 lakhs. It was also alleged that the OP failed to deliver the possession of the flat within 2 years from the date of the allotment as per the terms of the project brochure. The informant claimed that such arbitrary conduct of the OP caused appreciable adverse effect on the competition within India in violation of Section 3(3)(a) read with Section 3(1). Violation of the provisions of Section 4 was also alleged.<\/p>\n

The Commission perused the information and the documents filed therewith and also considered the material available in public domain. Looking at the nature of allegations, the Commission was of the view that provisions of Section 3(3)(a) read with Section 3(1) had no application to the present case. It was observed that the nature of the agreement entered into between the informant and the OP did not qualify as an agreement<\/em> under Section 3(3) of the Act. The reason being that the two of them were not engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services. Thus, prima facie, no contravention of the Act was made out against the OP under the aforementioned sections. Regarding violation of Section 4, the Commision held that OP was not a dominant<\/em> player in the relevant market<\/em>. In view of the foregoing, the Commission was of the opinion that no case of contravention either under Section 3 or 4 was made out against the OP. Accordingly, the matter was ordered to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. [D.K. Srivastava v. U.P. Housing and Development Board,2018 SCC OnLine CCI 73<\/b><\/a>, dated 14-08-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 <\/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":[2998,30429,22784,31603],"class_list":["post-200633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-Agreement","tag-dominant-player","tag-relevant-market","tag-section-33-of-competition-act"],"yoast_head":"\nAgreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: 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\/08\/25\/agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"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\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-08-25T12:33:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-19T06:29:30+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=\"2 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\/08\/25\/agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci\/\",\"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\/\",\"name\":\"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-25T12:33:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-19T06:29:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"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\/#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\/08\/25\/agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: 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":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: 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\/08\/25\/agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI","og_description":"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","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-08-25T12:33:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-19T06:29:30+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":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"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\/","name":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","datePublished":"2018-08-25T12:33:14+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-19T06:29:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"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\/#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\/08\/25\/agreement-between-consumer-and-service-provider-does-not-qualify-as-agreement-contemplated-under-section-33-of-competition-act-cci\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: 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":358845,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/","url_meta":{"origin":200633,"position":0},"title":"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI","author":"Sanket","date":"September 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Informant alleged that there is sharp decline in sales of his business, as a juice corner operator-Opposite Party sold cooked food from unhygienic and unknown sources at below manufacturing cost, leading to unfair competition in respect to vendors who are complying with the regulations.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"using unhygienic products not within competition act scope","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"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":200633,"position":1},"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":221570,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/30\/cci-no-contravention-of-ss-3-or-4-of-competition-act-found-on-allegations-of-quid-pro-quo-and-corruption\/","url_meta":{"origin":200633,"position":2},"title":"CCI | No contravention of Ss. 3 or 4 of Competition Act found on allegations of quid pro quo and corruption","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):\u00a0The Bench comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma (Member) and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), decided that no competition issues are made out in the present matter under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. In the present matter, Informant filed 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":218718,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/28\/no-abuse-of-dominant-position-contemplated-under-s-4-of-competition-act-found-against-gujarat-sbst\/","url_meta":{"origin":200633,"position":3},"title":"CCI | No abuse of dominant position contemplated under S. 4 of Competition Act found against Gujarat SBST","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 28, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI), New Delhi: Coram comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairman) and U.C. Nahta and Sangeeta Verma (Members), dismissed an application as the allegations in regard to abuse of dominant position or any other were not found to have been established. The present case was filed by\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":200633,"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":196837,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":200633,"position":5},"title":"BMW India not being a \u2018Dominant player\u2019 did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002: CCI","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 11, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"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, 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. The brief facts\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\/200633","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=200633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200633\/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=200633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}