{"id":220877,"date":"2019-10-15T18:10:41","date_gmt":"2019-10-15T12:40:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=220877"},"modified":"2019-11-01T16:58:44","modified_gmt":"2019-11-01T11:28:44","slug":"cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/","title":{"rendered":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Competition Commission of India (CCI): <\/strong>The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma (Member) and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), analysed the dominance of Vatika Limited and held that it has no dominance in the relevant market.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Present information filed by \u201cInformant\u201d under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act, 2002 alleging contraventions of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Informant approached a property dealer in December, 2012, for the purchase of a residential flat in Gurugram. The property dealer arranged a meeting of the Informant with Vatika officials in the Vatika office. The informant has averred that the sales executive of Vatika informed that <em>\u2018Vatika Town Square\u2019, <\/em>would be situated at the entrance of a large number of residential and commercial complexes in new Gurugram.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Further, it has been stated that, the informant was told by Vatika that Block-D was under construction and would be completed by the end of June 2015. It was stated that by that time the entire Dwarka Express Highway Road would also be complete.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Informant was also told that possession of the property would be given after 2.5 years and in case of delay in construction or any other default by Vatika, the interest of 8% would be payable by Vatika. Along with this, the Informant was told that the stated terms and conditions would be incorporated in the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) to be executed by Vatika with the Informant.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Allegations of Informant<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Informant alleged that in the BBA there was neither any mention of the construction \/completion\/ possession date nor of the payment of simple interest to the buyer, for the delay, if any, in completion of construction by Vatika.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On a later date, Informant in a meeting with Vatika was told that leasing \/ renting \/ of commercial units in <em>\u2018Vatika Town Square\u2019 <\/em>was already going on in a big way and property may be able to fetch some premium. It has been alleged that on a visit to <em>\u2018Vatika Town Square\u2019 <\/em>there was no activity of leasing\/ renting at D Block and the construction was not complete. All floors had only bare columns and bare floors without any partitions for the individual units, except for some activity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Informant on several occasions requested Vatika to inform him about the refund he would get on terminating the BBA along with deductions that would be involved, but no reply came along.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Informant alleged that Vatika was required to complete construction and offer possession by June 2015. Vatika neither informed about any delay due to <em>force majeure <\/em>event nor sought an extension of time. He further submitted that, construction activities in Block-D, \u2018<em>Vatika Town Square\u2019 <\/em>are still in progress, although Vatika issued intimation for possession and further kept demanding huge extra amount from buyers for delay in taking possession.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>\u201c&#8230;BBA was not only one-sided imposing unfair, discriminatory terms and conditions on the buyer, but also covered builder from all foreseeable or un-foreseeable events at the cost of buyers.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>\u201c&#8230;there is selling of property through unfair means by nexus between Vatika and property dealers.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>\u201c&#8230;Vatika is probably diverting funds collected from Block-D for other projects.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Decision of the Commission<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On perusal of the information stated above, <strong>provisions of Section 3 of the Act have no application to the present case as the Informant is a consumer and agreement with a consumer does not fall within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>In respect to Section 4 of the Act, <\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><em>\u201cWhat is of concern to the Commission in the present case is that the Informant booked a commercial space in Vatika Town Square project at Gurugram.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Taking into account the factors such as physical characteristics or end-use of goods, price of goods or services, consumer preferences and nature of service offered, the relevant product market for the purposes of the present case is the \u201cprovision of services for development and sale of commercial space\u201d.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Thus, the Commission keeping in view the factors held that Vatika has no dominance in the relevant market, no case to examine alleged abuse of dominance by Vatika in the matter, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, remains for determination by the Commission.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">No <em>prima facie <\/em>case and the information filed is closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. [Suresh Chander Gupta v. Vatika Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/\/DocumentLink\/3Bf38qbc\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine CCI 34<\/b><\/a>, decided on 03-10-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma (Member) and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), analysed <\/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":[3881,37931,22774,22784,37932],"class_list":["post-220877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-abuse-of-dominance","tag-builder-buyer-agreement","tag-dominance","tag-relevant-market","tag-section-4-of-the-competition-act"],"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>CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act | 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\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma (Member) and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), analysed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-10-15T12:40:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-11-01T11:28:44+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=\"4 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\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/\",\"name\":\"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-10-15T12:40:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-11-01T11:28:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#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\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act\"}]},{\"@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":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act | 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\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act","og_description":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma (Member) and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), analysed","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-10-15T12:40:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-11-01T11:28:44+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/","name":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","datePublished":"2019-10-15T12:40:41+00:00","dateModified":"2019-11-01T11:28:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#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\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act"}]},{"@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":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":220877,"position":0},"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 &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":361363,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/24\/cci-dismisses-abuse-of-dominance-case-against-gmr-hyderabad\/","url_meta":{"origin":220877,"position":1},"title":"CCI dismisses abuse of dominance case against GMR Hyderabad Airport Ltd; cites operational constraints for non-renewal of license","author":"Sanket","date":"September 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Non-renewal of the Informant\u2019s license for space on the airside of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport does not have the potential to limit and restrict the provision of Line Maintenance Services, so as to cause prejudice to the consumers and hence, is not in contravention of Section 4(2)(b) of the Competition\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":"abuse of dominance","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/abuse-of-dominance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/abuse-of-dominance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/abuse-of-dominance.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/abuse-of-dominance.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362966,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/cci-on-abuse-of-dominance-by-icici-securities-nse-bse\/","url_meta":{"origin":220877,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Several key players act as competitive constraint\u2019; CCI dismisses anti-competitive, abuse of dominance allegations against ICICI Securities, NSE &amp; BSE","author":"Sanket","date":"October 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe alleged conduct of concerted practice by NSE and BSE of prescribing standard agreement flows from the regulatory architecture and therefore, does not attract the provision of Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"abuse of dominance by ICICI Securities","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/abuse-of-dominance-by-ICICI-Securities.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/abuse-of-dominance-by-ICICI-Securities.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/abuse-of-dominance-by-ICICI-Securities.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/abuse-of-dominance-by-ICICI-Securities.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6628,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":220877,"position":3},"title":"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 29, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): While observing that real estate developer Vatika Group does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market, CCI rejected charges against the Company alleging abuse of dominant market position in market of services for development and sale of its commercial units\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.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":220877,"position":4},"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 &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":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":220877,"position":5},"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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220877","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=220877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220877\/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=220877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}