{"id":205001,"date":"2018-11-12T14:30:33","date_gmt":"2018-11-12T09:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=205001"},"modified":"2018-12-13T17:03:31","modified_gmt":"2018-12-13T11:33:31","slug":"meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: CCI"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Competition Commission of India (CCI): <\/strong>The Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson) and Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), closed a matter under Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 against the OPs: Ola; Uber; Uber B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Uber Technologies Inc., San Francisco, USA for alleged contravention of provisions of Sections 3 of Competition Act, 2002.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The informant was stated to be primarily aggrieved by the pricing mechanisms adopted by the aforesaid OPs. It was alleged by him that the algorithmic pricing adopted by the OPs took away the liberty of individual drivers to compete with each other amounting to <strong>\u2018price fixing\u2019 <\/strong>in contravention of provisions of Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002. Further, algorithm pricing had taken away the freedom of the riders and drivers to choose the other side on the basis of price competition and both have to accept the price set by the algorithm. OPs act as \u2018Hub\u2019 where \u2018spokes\u2019 (competing drivers) collude on prices.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Competition Commission drew its observations on keeping the three primary allegations of the informant in mind, i.e., <strong><em>Firstly,<\/em><\/strong> Cab Aggregators use their respective algorithms to fix price under Section 3(3)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act for every ride and do not allow the drivers to compete on prices. <strong><em>Secondly,<\/em><\/strong> Price fixing acts as an imposition of minimum resale price maintenance agreement under Section 3(4)(e) of Competition Act, 2002 between the Cab Aggregators and their drivers. <strong><em>Thirdly, <\/em><\/strong>Owing to information asymmetry, i.e., Cab Aggregators possessing considerable personalized information about every rider have been able to price discriminate to the disadvantage of the riders.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Commission by throwing light upon the concept of <strong>hub and spoke<\/strong> in a conventional sense stated that it \u201crefers to the exchange of sensitive information between competitors through a third party that facilitates the cartelistic behaviour of such competitors and it <strong>does not apply to the facts of the present case<\/strong>. In furtherance to the second allegation regarding resale price maintenance, the commission held it to be not tenable as OPs perform a centralised aggregation function that rests on the algorithmic determination of prices which brings no resale of services. Commission also observed that existence of an agreement, understanding or arrangement, demonstrating the meeting of minds is a <em>sine qua non <\/em>for establishing contravention under Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002; which in the present case does not appear neither between the Cab Aggregators and their respective driver nor between the drivers <em>inter-se<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus the Commission dealt with above said allegations by stating that in its view no case of contravention of Section 3 was made out and hence concluded its order. [Samir Agarwal and ANI Technologies Ltd., In re,<a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/YLKK06u3\"><b>2018 SCC OnLine CCI 86<\/b><\/a>, Order dated 06-11-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson) and Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), closed a matter <\/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":[32393,27914,32392,32391,32390],"class_list":["post-205001","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-algorithmic-pricing","tag-cartelisation","tag-information-assymetry","tag-price-fixing","tag-section-3-of-competition-act-2002"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: 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\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: CCI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson) and Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), closed a matter\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-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=\"2018-11-12T09:00:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-13T11:33:31+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\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: CCI | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-11-12T09:00:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-13T11:33:31+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-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\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: 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":"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: 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\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: CCI","og_description":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson) and Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), closed a matter","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-11-12T09:00:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-13T11:33:31+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\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/","name":"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: CCI | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","datePublished":"2018-11-12T09:00:33+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-13T11:33:31+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-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\/11\/12\/meeting-of-minds-a-sine-qua-non-for-contravention-of-section-3-of-competition-act-no-merit-in-case-against-ola-uber-cci\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cMeeting of minds\u201d a sine qua non for contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act; no merit in case against Ola, Uber: 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":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":205001,"position":0},"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 &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":240844,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/17\/ola-uber-do-not-facilitate-cartelization-or-anti-competitive-practices-between-drivers-holds-sc-but-says-no-to-imposing-heavy-cost-on-the-informant\/","url_meta":{"origin":205001,"position":1},"title":"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing &#8220;heavy cost&#8221; on the informant","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\"When the CCI performs inquisitorial, as opposed to adjudicatory functions, the doors of approaching the CCI and the appellate authority, i.e., the NCLAT, must be kept wide open in public interest.\"","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205073,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/14\/irctc-mor-investigation-directed-in-light-of-unfair-condition-in-the-market-for-sale-of-rail-tickets-in-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":205001,"position":2},"title":"IRCTC &#038; MoR| Investigation directed in light of unfair condition in the market for sale of rail tickets in India","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):The Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital, Chairperson; Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members, dealt with a case against IRCTC and Ministry of Railways for contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 in regard to\u201crounding off actual base fares to next higher\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":218729,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/28\/cci-abuse-on-account-of-collective-dominance-is-a-concept-not-recognised-by-the-indian-competition-regime-so-far\/","url_meta":{"origin":205001,"position":3},"title":"CCI |\u00a0Abuse on account of collective dominance is a concept not recognised by the Indian Competition regime so far","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 28, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and U.C. Nahta and Sangeeta Verma (Members) dismissed an application filed by a Telugu Film and T.V. Serial Producer and distributor on being not allocated sufficient cinema theaters\/screens. In the present case, Ashok Kumar Vallabhaneni (Informant) filed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":250510,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/30\/tourist-taxi-unions-in-state-of-goa\/","url_meta":{"origin":205001,"position":4},"title":"Are Tourist Taxi Unions in State of Goa preventing entry of App-based Taxi Aggregator Companies in Goa? Read a detailed account of CCI\u2019s decision","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): Coram comprising Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Members) took suo motu cognizance of the matter regarding alleged prevention of entry of app-based taxi aggregator companies in the State of Goa. Based on newspaper reports regarding alleged concerted action to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":213324,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/06\/cci-all-india-sugar-trade-association-alleged-for-circulating-price-sensitive-information-amongst-cartel-members\/","url_meta":{"origin":205001,"position":5},"title":"CCI | All India Sugar Trade Association alleged for circulating \u201cprice sensitive information\u201d amongst cartel members","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Bench comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson), U.C. Nahta and Sangeeta Verma, Members, closed the matter in terms of Section 26(2) of Competition Act, 2002 on finding no contravention of provisions of Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1). In the present case, Informant has\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/205001","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=205001"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205001\/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=205001"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205001"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205001"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}