{"id":6628,"date":"2015-04-29T14:04:00","date_gmt":"2015-04-29T14:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6628"},"modified":"2015-10-15T15:20:49","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T09:50:49","slug":"charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India (CCI): <\/b>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 in Gurgaon. The Commission was hearing complaint filed by a person who had purchased a commercial unit in Vatika Professional Point Sector in Sector 66 of Gurgaon, Haryana. It was alleged in the complaint that Vatika Group delayed construction of the project for more than a year from date of booking and even before starting of construction, took payment of Rs. 35,25,000\/- i.e. more than 33% of the total consideration under the threat of forfeiture of amount already paid and further demanded payment of Rs.8,43,750\/- i.e., around 42.5% of the total consideration. It was further alleged that the Company committed to complete the project within three years of booking but the project was not completed on time and subsequently allotment of the Informant was terminated unilaterally by the Company. After perusal of relevant documents, CCI observed that there are a number of real estate developers in the relevant market offering commercial projects such as Raheja, DLF, Unitech, Vatika, Ansal, Emaar MGF, etc. which indicates that the buyers have the option to choose developer of their choice in the relevant geographic market. CCI further noted, \u201cSince there is no information available on record and in the public domain to show the position of strength of the Opposite Party (Vatika Group) which enables it to operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market, prima facie, the Opposite Party does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market. In the absence of dominance of the Opposite Party in the relevant market, its conduct cannot be examined under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.\u201d While observing that, “no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 is made out against the Opposite Party (Vatika Group) in the instant matter,” CCI closed the matter under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Dominic Da\u2019Silva v. Vatika Group, 2015 CCI 6<\/a>, decided on April 1, 2015<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Competition Commission of India (CCI): While observing that real estate developer Vatika Group does not appear to be in a dominant position <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[2660],"class_list":["post-6628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-competition_laws"],"yoast_head":"\nCharges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed | 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\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Commission of India (CCI): While observing that real estate developer Vatika Group does not appear to be in a dominant position\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/\" \/>\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=\"2015-04-29T14:04:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T09:50:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/\",\"name\":\"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-04-29T14:04:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T09:50:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed | 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\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed","og_description":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): While observing that real estate developer Vatika Group does not appear to be in a dominant position","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2015-04-29T14:04:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T09:50:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","name":"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2015-04-29T14:04:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T09:50:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/04\/29\/charges-against-real-estate-firm-vatika-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Charges against real estate firm Vatika Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":220877,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":6628,"position":0},"title":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 15, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): 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. Present information filed by \u201cInformant\u201d under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act, 2002\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":6552,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/02\/25\/complaint-against-volkswagen-group-alleging-abuse-of-dominant-market-position-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":6628,"position":1},"title":"Complaint against Volkswagen Group alleging abuse of dominant market position, dismissed","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 25, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): India\u2019s competition watchdog, CCI had rejected a complaint filed by Delhi-NCR based Bhasin Motors alleging that Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. was abusing its dominant market position with regard to dealership agreements. Bhasin Motors had alleged in the complaint that by virtue of its\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\/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":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":6628,"position":2},"title":"CCI dismisses the allegations of abuse of dominance and cartelisation in light of competitive forces prevailing","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The 3-Member Bench comprising of Sudhir Mital (Chairperson), Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta (Members), while pronouncing an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, dismissed the case in light of no contravention being found as alleged of the provisions of Sections 3 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6220,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/06\/02\/adidas-ag-and-reebok-international-ltd-not-abusing-their-dominant-market-position-with-regard-to-sale-of-premium-sports-goods-in-noida\/","url_meta":{"origin":6628,"position":3},"title":"Adidas AG and Reebok International Ltd. not abusing their dominant market position with regard to sale of premium sports goods in Noida","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 2, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): CCI has rejected a complaint filed by Kalpataru Enterprises, a franchisee of Reebok India Co. alleging that Adidas AG, Reebok International Ltd and Reebok India Company, as a group, abused its dominant position in the relevant market of sale of premium sports goods in Noida.\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\/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":6765,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/27\/dlf-is-not-in-dominant-position-in-delhi-no-prima-facia-case-of-abuse-arise\/","url_meta":{"origin":6628,"position":4},"title":"DLF is not in dominant position in Delhi, no prima facia case of abuse arise","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 27, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India: \u00a0In a sigh of relief to DLF, a building giant already facing fair play litigations, the market competition regulator CCI closed a case alleging abuse of dominant position. The informants in the present case alleged that DLF compelled them to enter into one-sided and unfair Apartment\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":267693,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/01\/dlf-is-a-dominant-enterprise-in-developing-commercial-space-in-kolkata-competition-cci-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":6628,"position":5},"title":"DLF is a dominant enterprise in developing commercial space in Kolkata? CCI analyses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): On finding that DLF being a new entrant in developing commercial space in Kolkata and having only one property, Commission held that the same cannot be treated as a dominant enterprise which can operate independently of competitive forces. Instant information was filed under Section 19(1)(a)\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\/6628","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6628"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6628\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}