{"id":358845,"date":"2025-09-03T15:30:22","date_gmt":"2025-09-03T10:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=358845"},"modified":"2025-09-03T15:50:58","modified_gmt":"2025-09-03T10:20:58","slug":"using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/","title":{"rendered":"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Competition Commission of India:<\/span> A complaint was filed by the Informant under Section 3<\/a> of the Competition Act, 2002<\/a> (‘2002 Act’), alleging anti-competitive agreement or conduct by a juice corner operator-Opposite Party. A Bench comprising of Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member)<\/span>, and Deepak Anurag (Member)<\/span>, held that the Opposite Party was operating independently, and actions such as selling products at low prices or operating without licenses were not considered violations under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, by an entity who was not a significant market player. It was also held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, alleged use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standards did not fall within the scope of the 2002 Act.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The Informant filed a complaint against the Opposite Party, alleging contravention of Section 3 of the 2002 Act. The Informant was allotted a shop at a hospital via an allotment letter dated 23-3-2022 and signed a Lease and License Agreement on 15-4-2022. The Opposite Party did not vacate the premises, preventing the Informant from taking possession. Despite a representation on 25-6-2022, the authorities declared the agreement null and void on 24-9-2022, citing failure to materialise the lease cum license agreement within 90 days. The Informant was offered a refund of security deposit and later allotted a shop on 4-3-2024, where he began business under a new name.<\/p>\n

The Informant alleged that there was a sharp decline in sales after starting his new business, attributing it to the Opposite Party selling cooked food from unhygienic and unknown sources at below manufacturing cost, leading to unfair competition in respect to vendors who were complying with all the regulations.<\/p>\n

The Opposite Party was reportedly selling various food items like samosa, momos, idli, dosa, and non-food items like sanitary napkins, CDs, and toiletries, etc. without required license. The Informant claimed that he incurred Rs 3,50,000 to purchase furniture and equipment for the prospective shop but due to the Opposite Party’s refusal to vacate the originally allotted shop, he sustained irreparable pecuniary loss. A complaint was submitted on 12-12-2024, and authorities sought the Opposite Party’s response on 14-1-2025. The Informant also alleged that the Opposite Party had illegally occupied public premises, causing disruption and unfair competition for other vendors. Apart from unfair trade practices and illegal occupation, the Informant had raised concerns of public nuisance, health risks, and environmental disruption due to the Opposite Party’s activities.<\/p>\n

The Informant prayed for (a) removal of the Opposite Party’s illegal occupation, (b) ensure that the Opposite Party complied with applicable laws and regulations for food safety and trade, (c) investigation of unfair trade practices, and (d) resolution of public nuisance caused by unauthorized food sales.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

The CCI reviewed the allegations under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, which prohibited anti-competitive agreements. Upon examination, it found no allegation or evidence of any agreement, whether horizontal or vertical, between the Opposite Party and its competitors or suppliers that could potentially restrict competition. The Opposite Party appeared to be operating independently, and actions such as selling products at low prices or operating without licenses were not considered violations under Section 3 of the 2002 Act, by an entity who was not a significant market player.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the CCI noted that the Informant failed to submit credible evidence indicating any anti-competitive agreement or conduct. The information provided was considered vague and insufficient to establish a prima facie<\/span> case under Section 26(1)<\/a> of the 2002 Act<\/a> and no competition issue arose in the present case. The CCI also noted that issues like unauthorized use of public premises and alleged food safety violations did not fall within the scope of the 2002 Act. The CCI concluded that no case under Section 3 of the 2002 Act was made out, and thus, the matter was closed under Section 26(2) of the 2002 Act.<\/p>\n

[N. Mohan Rao v. Bishal Juice Corner, 2025 SCC OnLine CCI 76<\/a>, decided on 26-8-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67526,"featured_media":358846,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[88510,30570,5461,88514,88512,88513,44746,88509,36072,88511,77828,41437],"class_list":["post-358845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-anil-agrawal-member","tag-anti-competitive-agreement","tag-cci","tag-competition-act-scope","tag-deepak-anurag-member","tag-food-safety-violation","tag-public-premises","tag-ravneet-kaur-chairperson","tag-section-3-competition-act","tag-sweta-kakkad-member","tag-unauthorised-occupation","tag-unfair-competition"],"yoast_head":"\nUsing unhygienic products not within Competition Act scope|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The CCI held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and food safety violations fall outside the scope of Competition Act, 2002.\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The CCI held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and food safety violations fall outside the scope of Competition Act, 2002.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-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=\"2025-09-03T10:00:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-03T10:20:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sanket\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sanket\" \/>\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\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/\",\"name\":\"Using unhygienic products not within Competition Act scope|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-03T10:00:22+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-03T10:20:58+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/121612e1a21dfc21448f9b2045c981f9\"},\"description\":\"The CCI held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and food safety violations fall outside the scope of Competition Act, 2002.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"using unhygienic products not within competition act scope\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope 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\/121612e1a21dfc21448f9b2045c981f9\",\"name\":\"Sanket\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c122f5be1209ae38128440ce7eec70a2abae31593c7c894d47867f049dc8a268?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c122f5be1209ae38128440ce7eec70a2abae31593c7c894d47867f049dc8a268?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sanket\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sanket\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Using unhygienic products not within Competition Act scope|SCC Times","description":"The CCI held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and food safety violations fall outside the scope of Competition Act, 2002.","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\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI","og_description":"The CCI held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and food safety violations fall outside the scope of Competition Act, 2002.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-03T10:00:22+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-03T10:20:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sanket","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope of Competition Act: CCI","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sanket","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/","name":"Using unhygienic products not within Competition Act scope|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp","datePublished":"2025-09-03T10:00:22+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-03T10:20:58+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/121612e1a21dfc21448f9b2045c981f9"},"description":"The CCI held that unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and food safety violations fall outside the scope of Competition Act, 2002.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"using unhygienic products not within competition act scope"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope-cci\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Unauthorised occupation of public premises, use of unhygienic products, and violations of food safety standard not within scope 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\/121612e1a21dfc21448f9b2045c981f9","name":"Sanket","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c122f5be1209ae38128440ce7eec70a2abae31593c7c894d47867f049dc8a268?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c122f5be1209ae38128440ce7eec70a2abae31593c7c894d47867f049dc8a268?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sanket"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sanket\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/using-unhygienic-products-not-within-competition-act-scope.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"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":358845,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Several key players act as competitive constraint\u2019; CCI dismisses anti-competitive, abuse of dominance allegations against ICICI Securities, NSE & 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 "Case Briefs"","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":361363,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/24\/cci-dismisses-abuse-of-dominance-case-against-gmr-hyderabad\/","url_meta":{"origin":358845,"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 "Case Briefs"","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":362229,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/01\/tribunal-and-commissions-september-2025-roundup-hyd-airport-case-epfo-stakeholder-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":358845,"position":2},"title":"Tribunals and Commissions September 2025| EPFO stakeholder claims; Food safety standards violation; Education Society\u2019s service tax exemption; & More","author":"Editor","date":"October 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore the key legal developments of September 2025, featuring the CCI\u2019S abuse of dominance case against GMR Hyderabad Airport, CESTAT\u2019S exemption of service tax for Education Welfare Society, SEBI on liability in partnership, EPFO stakeholder claims.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tribunals and Commissions September 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Tribunals-and-Commissions-September-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346705,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/29\/cci-approves-googles-20-24-crore-settlement-in-android-tv-anti-competitive-practices-case-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":358845,"position":3},"title":"CCI approves Google\u2019s \u20b920.24 crore settlement in Android TV anti-competitive practices case","author":"Ritu","date":"April 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The CCI directed Google to submit annual compliance reports for five years and implement the Settlement Proposal per its submitted timeline.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Competition Commission of India","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Competition-Commission-of-India-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Competition-Commission-of-India-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Competition-Commission-of-India-2.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Competition-Commission-of-India-2.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":208655,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/23\/cci-no-contravention-by-rwitc-in-game-of-horse-racing-as-pieces-of-evidence-fail-to-prove-any-anti-competitive-practices\/","url_meta":{"origin":358845,"position":4},"title":"CCI | No contravention by RWITC in game of horse racing as pieces of evidence fail to prove any anti-competitive practices \u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Three-Member Bench comprising of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairperson and Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta as members dismissed a case for anti-competitive practices for lack of merits. This petition has been filed under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 by informant against 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":200633,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":358845,"position":5},"title":"Agreement between consumer and service provider does not qualify as \u2018agreement\u2019 contemplated under Section 3(3) of Competition Act: CCI","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 25, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"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 closed a matter filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against the U.P. Housing and Development Board (Opposite Party). The informant was allotted one LIG flat\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\/358845","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\/67526"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=358845"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358845\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/358846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=358845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=358845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=358845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}