{"id":240844,"date":"2020-12-17T13:23:41","date_gmt":"2020-12-17T07:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=240844"},"modified":"2020-12-25T11:57:59","modified_gmt":"2020-12-25T06:27:59","slug":"ola-uber-do-not-facilitate-cartelization-or-anti-competitive-practices-between-drivers-holds-sc-but-says-no-to-imposing-heavy-cost-on-the-informant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing “heavy cost” on the informant"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a plea seeking inquiry into the alleged anti-competitive practices of Ola and Uber of entering into price-fixing agreement, the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman*<\/strong>, KM Joseph, Krishna Murari, JJ has refused to interfere with the concurrent finding of CCI and NCLAT that Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, who are independent individuals, who act independently of each other, so as to attract the application of section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.<\/p>\n

Why was an inquiry sought? <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

An informant sought that the Competition Commission of India initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [Ola], and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc. [Uber], alleging that they entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) of the Act, and engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 3(1) 1 read with section 3(4)(e) of the Act. According to the Informant, Uber and Ola provide radio taxi services and essentially operate as platforms through mobile applications which allow riders and drivers, that is, two sides of the platform, to interact. Due to algorithmic pricing, neither are riders able to negotiate fares with individual drivers for rides that are booked through the apps, nor are the drivers able to offer any discounts. Thus, the pricing algorithm takes away the freedom of riders and drivers to choose the best price on the basis of competition, as both have to accept the price set by the pricing algorithm.<\/p>\n

Further, despite the fact that the drivers are independent entities who are not employees or agents of Ola or Uber, the driver is bound to accept the trip fare reflected in the app at the end of the trip, without having any discretion insofar as the same is concerned. The drivers receive their share of the fare only after the deduction of a commission by Ola and Uber for the services offered to the rider.<\/p>\n

What did the counsels say? <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Uber, walked the Court through the concurrent findings of fact of the CCI and the NCLAT and said that every driver of a taxi cab, who uses the Ola or Uber app, can have several such apps including both Ola, Uber and the apps of some of their competitors, and can take private rides de hors these apps as well.<\/p>\n

Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Ola, agreed with Dr. Singhvi\u2019s submissions on merit but questioned the locus standi of the informant, an \u201cindependent practitioner of law\u201d. He, thus, prayed before the Supreme Court that \u201cin such cases heavy costs should be imposed to deter such persons from approaching the CCI with frivolous and\/or mala fide information, filed at the behest of competitors.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh, appearing on behalf of the CCI, however, stated that though he would support the CCI\u2019s Order closing the case, he would also support the right of the Appellant to approach the CCI with information.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

What did the Supreme Court say? <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Informant\u2019s locus standi <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

A reading of the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 and the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 shows that \u201cany person\u201d may provide information to the CCI, which may then act upon it in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The definition of \u201cperson\u201d in section 2(l) of the Act is an inclusive one and is extremely wide, including individuals of all kinds and every artificial juridical person.<\/p>\n

Section 19(1) of the Act originally provided for the \u201creceipt of a complaint\u201d from any person, consumer or their association, or trade association. This expression was then substituted with the expression \u201creceipt of any information in such manner and\u201d by the 2007 Amendment. This substitution is not without significance.<\/p>\n

A complaint could be filed only from a person who was aggrieved by a particular action, information may be received from any person, obviously whether such person is or is not personally affected. This is for the reason that the proceedings under the Act are proceedings in rem which affect the public interest. That the CCI may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act on its own motion, is also laid down in section 19(1) of the Act.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cEven while exercising suo motu powers, the CCI may receive information from any person and not merely from a person who is aggrieved by the conduct that is alleged to have occurred. This also follows from a reading of section 35 of the Act, in which the earlier expression \u201ccomplainant or defendant\u201d has been substituted by the expression, \u201cperson or an enterprise,\u201d setting out that the informant may appear either in person, or through one or more agents, before the CCI to present the information that he has gathered.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

However, Section 45 of the Act is a deterrent against persons who provide information to the CCI, mala fide or recklessly, inasmuch as false statements and omissions of material facts are punishable with a penalty which may extend to the hefty amount of rupees one crore, with the CCI being empowered to pass other such orders as it deems fit.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis, and the judicious use of heavy costs being imposed when the information supplied is either frivolous or mala fide, can keep in check what is described as the growing tendency of persons being \u201cset up\u201d by rivals in the trade.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The 2009 Regulations also do not require the informant to state how he is personally aggrieved by the contravention of the Act, but only requires a statement of facts and details of the alleged contravention to be set out in the information filed. Also, regulation 25 shows that public interest must be foremost in the consideration of the CCI when an application is made to it in writing that a person or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and such person may therefore be allowed to take part in the proceedings. Further,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cCCI must maintain confidentiality of the identity of an informant on a request made to it in writing, so that such informant be free from harassment by persons involved in contravening the Act.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cPerson aggrieved\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Since the CCI and the NCLAT deal with practices which have an adverse effect on competition in derogation of the interest of consumers, the Act vests powers in the CCI and enables it to act in rem<\/em>, in public interest. Hence, a \u201cperson aggrieved\u201d must, in the context of the Act, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly.<\/p>\n

Further, it is not without significance that the expressions used in sections 53B and 53T of the Act are \u201cany person\u201d, thereby signifying that all persons who bring to the CCI information of practices that are contrary to the provisions of the Act, could be said to be aggrieved by an adverse order of the CCI in case it refuses to act upon the information supplied. By way of contrast, section 53N(3) speaks of making payment to an applicant as compensation for the loss or damage caused to the applicant as a result of any contravention of the provisions of Chapter II of the Act, having been committed by an enterprise. By this sub-section, clearly, therefore, \u201cany person\u201d who makes an application for compensation, under sub-section (1) of section 53N of the Act, would refer only to persons who have suffered loss or damage, thereby, qualifying the expression \u201cany person\u201d as being a person who has suffered loss or damage.<\/p>\n

It was, hence, noticed,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cwhen 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, so as to subserve the high public purpose of the Act.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission on India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1024<\/b><\/a>, decided on 15.12.2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“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.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121,"featured_media":239472,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2993,5461,18751,2505,33719,14781,22014,3734,44358,44515],"class_list":["post-240844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-anti-competitive_practices","tag-cci","tag-competition-act","tag-Competition_Commission_of_India","tag-informant","tag-locus-standi","tag-nclat","tag-Ola","tag-person-aggrieved","tag-uber"],"yoast_head":"\nOla, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing "heavy cost" on the informant | 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\/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\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing "heavy cost" on the informant\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\""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."\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"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\/\" \/>\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=\"2020-12-17T07:53:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-12-25T06:27:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Prachi Bhardwaj\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 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\/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\":\"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\/\",\"name\":\"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing \\\"heavy cost\\\" on the informant | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-17T07:53:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-12-25T06:27:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing “heavy cost” on the informant\"}]},{\"@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\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942\",\"name\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\",\"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\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Prachi Bhardwaj\"},\"description\":\"Senior Associate Editor\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing \"heavy cost\" on the informant | 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\/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\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing \"heavy cost\" on the informant","og_description":"\"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.\"","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-12-17T07:53:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-12-25T06:27:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Prachi Bhardwaj","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"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\/","name":"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing \"heavy cost\" on the informant | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg","datePublished":"2020-12-17T07:53:41+00:00","dateModified":"2020-12-25T06:27:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"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\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"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\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ola, Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, holds SC but says no to imposing “heavy cost” on the informant"}]},{"@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\/de579aff4bc6dd24b68d6d472ac92942","name":"Prachi Bhardwaj","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\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Prachi-Image2-150x150.png","caption":"Prachi Bhardwaj"},"description":"Senior Associate Editor","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_3\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/sc-07-2.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":240844,"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 "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":6770,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/","url_meta":{"origin":240844,"position":1},"title":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 5, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India: \u00a0\u00a0Whilst OLA Cab (of ANI Technologies) is under the scanner of the fair play watchdog and undergoing an investigation by the Director General of Investigation (\u201cDG\u201d) for alleged abuse of dominant position; the Commission has rejected the plea of the informant for interim relief. \u00a0The Commission\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","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\/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":260235,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/18\/dominant-position-and-predatory-pricing-or-win-win-for-riders-and-drivers\/","url_meta":{"origin":240844,"position":2},"title":"Dominant position and Predatory Pricing or Win-Win for riders and drivers? NCLAT upholds CCI\u2019s decision","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):\u00a0 The Coram of Justice Jarat Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Dr Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) held that Ola\u2019s below-cost pricing was not predatory pricing with a view to dislodging any competitor from the market but towards establishing itself as an effective and reliable brand\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\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":116181,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/27\/cci-imposes-penalty-against-amma-fekfa-for-anti-competitive-practices\/","url_meta":{"origin":240844,"position":3},"title":"CCI imposes penalty against AMMA, FEKFA for anti-competitive practices","author":"Saba","date":"March 27, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India:\u00a0The Informant, T. G. Vinayakumar, a movie director, had approached CCI alleging anti-competitive conduct by\u00a0 Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA), FEFKA Director\u2019s Union, FEFKA Production Executive\u2019s Union. On different occasions, the said associations allegedly tried to force various actors, technicians,\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":154924,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/07\/for-applying-s-3-of-competition-act-against-an-alleged-anti-competitive-practice-a-prima-facie-case-needs-to-be-established-first\/","url_meta":{"origin":240844,"position":4},"title":"For applying S. 3 of Competition Act against an alleged anti-competitive practice, a prima facie case needs to be established first","author":"Saba","date":"September 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India: The CCI recently passed an order under Sec. 26(2) of the Competition Act wherein the informant had filed information against several banks under Section 19(1)(a) of the above-mentioned Act alleging cartelisation between them to limit or control the safe deposit lockers services offered by them. 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":205001,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":240844,"position":5},"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","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 12, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): 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\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\/240844","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\/121"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240844"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240844\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/239472"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}