{"id":6770,"date":"2015-09-05T12:09:00","date_gmt":"2015-09-05T12:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6770"},"modified":"2015-10-15T15:55:47","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T10:25:47","slug":"interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/","title":{"rendered":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><b><span lang=\"EN-US\">Competition Commission of India: <\/span><\/b><span lang=\"EN-US\">\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 on 24-04-2015 had found a <i>prima facia<\/i> case against OLA for indulging into predatory pricing to \u00a0oust other players in the relevant market of \u201c<i>Radio taxi services in the city of Bengaluru\u201d <\/i>and had order for investigation. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"EN-US\">The informant\u00a0 <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">\u00a0<\/span><span lang=\"EN-GB\">Fast Track Call Cab sought an temporary injunction against OLA <\/span><span lang=\"EN-US\">to restrain from indulging in alleged practice of predatory pricing on the ground that unfair practices of OLA Cab (\u201copposite party\u201d) will cause irreparable lose to the informant and adverse effect on competition in the market. \u00a0\u00a0Informant contended that the OLA after having received funds of about $250 Million from Soft Bank, Japan in March, 2014 unleashed an onslaught of anti-competitive practices resulting in large scale erosion of market share of the Informant. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"EN-US\">The majority of the Commission (5:1); ruled that simply because the Informant has a <i>prima facie<\/i>case, by itself will not entitle him to the grant of interim relief, unless, he satisfies that there is irreparable loss and injury to him and that the balance of convenience also lies in his favour. It found that the existence of the second element, <i>i.e.<\/i>, irreparable loss to the Informant or definite apprehension of adverse effect on competition in the market has also not been satisfied. Further balance of convenience also is not lie in the informant because figures submitted by him cannot be relied upon further unless the same are verified by the DG in its investigation. For the reasons and pending investigation, the Commission was not convinced that any interim relief is required to be granted in this case.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"EN-US\">However, one member in his dissenting note after a thorough market analysis observed that the market conditions in the present case were conducive for a credible predatory strategy. He observed that the particular urgency for an order of restraint in the present case arises from the fact that the OLA has continued to pursue its loss-entailing price-incentive scheme in the relevant market even after the order of the Commission for initiation of investigation. \u00a0He found that the market performance of OLA based on its deep pocket and predatory strategy is an imminent danger for the Informant and the competition, thus there is an urgent need to stop the Opposite Party on its tracks. <\/span><i><span lang=\"EN-GB\">Fast Track Call Cab Private Ltd<\/span><\/i><span lang=\"EN-GB\"> v. <i>ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd<\/i>, \u00a0<\/span><span style=\"font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/[2015]_CCI_24\">2015 CCI 24<\/a>,<\/span><b>\u00a0<\/b>Order on 03.09.2015<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Competition Commission of India: \u00a0\u00a0Whilst OLA Cab (of ANI Technologies) is under the scanner of the fair play watchdog and undergoing an <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":76441,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[2943],"class_list":["post-6770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-injunction"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected | 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\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Commission of India: \u00a0\u00a0Whilst OLA Cab (of ANI Technologies) is under the scanner of the fair play watchdog and undergoing an\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/\" \/>\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=\"2015-09-05T12:09:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T10:25:47+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=\"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\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-09-05T12:09:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T10:25:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":447,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/10\\\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"injunction\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Tribunals\\\/Commissions\\\/Regulatory Bodies\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/\",\"name\":\"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/10\\\/Competition-Commission.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-09-05T12:09:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T10:25:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#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\\\/2015\\\/09\\\/05\\\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected | 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\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected","og_description":"Competition Commission of India: \u00a0\u00a0Whilst OLA Cab (of ANI Technologies) is under the scanner of the fair play watchdog and undergoing an","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2015-09-05T12:09:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T10:25:47+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":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected","datePublished":"2015-09-05T12:09:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T10:25:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/"},"wordCount":447,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","keywords":["injunction"],"articleSection":["Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/","name":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","datePublished":"2015-09-05T12:09:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T10:25:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#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\/2015\/09\/05\/interim-injunction-application-against-ola-cab-in-alleged-predatory-pricing-case-rejected\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Interim injunction application against OLA Cab in alleged predatory pricing case, rejected"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":31581,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/04\/uber-is-not-dominant-in-services-offered-by-radio-taxis-and-yellow-taxis-in-kolkata\/","url_meta":{"origin":6770,"position":0},"title":"UBER is not dominant in services offered by radio taxis and yellow taxis    in Kolkata","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 4, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): Extending the limit on relevant product market in Kolkata in comparison to Bengaluru (OLA case), the fair competition regulator CCI closed a case filed against radio-taxi operator UBER. The informant, another radio-taxi operator in Kolkata, alleged that UBER is abusing its dominant position by adopting\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\/01\/Uber.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Uber.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Uber.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Uber.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/Uber.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":6770,"position":1},"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 &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":6770,"position":2},"title":"Section 4 of the Competition Act does not contemplate \u2018Collective Dominance\u2019; case of contravention not established against Ola, Uber","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI):\u00a0 A four-member bench comprising of Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson and Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahata, Members, held that opposite parties, \u2018Ola\u2019 (OP 1) and \u2018Uber\u2019 (OP 2) did not contravene either Section 3 or 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The informant- \u2018Meru\u2019\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":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":6770,"position":3},"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 &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\/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":67191,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/07\/allegations-of-predatory-pricing-against-ola-and-taxi-for-sure-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":6770,"position":4},"title":"Allegations of Predatory Pricing against Ola and Taxi for Sure, dismissed","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 7, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India: While dealing with case relating to predatory pricing allegations against ANI Technologies Private Limited (Opposite Parties), the Commission held that no case could be made out against the ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Commission Act, 2002. In the\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\/09\/OLa.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/OLa.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/OLa.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/OLa.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/OLa.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":225294,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/07\/predatory-pricing-not-only-abuse-but-also-proof-of-dominance\/","url_meta":{"origin":6770,"position":5},"title":"Predatory Pricing &#8212; Not only abuse but also proof of dominance\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Dhruv Rajain, Principal Associate, Shubhankar Jain, Associate and Aakriti Thakur, Associate, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas\u00a0 Cite as: (2020) PL (Comp. L) February 79","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/law-firm\/cam\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Cyril-Amarchand-CAM.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6770","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=6770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6770\/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=6770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}