Corporate Law : The CCI held that dominance alone is insufficient to establish a violation under Section 4. The key takeaway is that actual or pot...
Corporate Law : This case examines whether borrowing costs should be capitalised using full-year borrowings or only those during the eligible peri...
Corporate Law : The Court’s 2025 ruling upheld CCI’s power to impose structural and personal penalties without a second notice, marking a majo...
Corporate Law : India is moving to regulate Big Tech's anti-competitive practices like predatory pricing, self-preferencing, and data misuse. A ne...
Corporate Law : An analysis of India’s merger control under CCI rules, deal value threshold, key cases, and comparisons with US, EU, and UK fram...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India has proposed amendments to address administrative and procedural issues identified during impl...
Corporate Law : The proposed rules establish a comprehensive conduct framework for CCI employees, including integrity, conflict-of-interest contro...
Corporate Law : Parliament was informed that no antitrust or merger cases originated from Jammu and Kashmir during the year. The key takeaway is t...
Corporate Law : Enforcement activity rose with steady antitrust actions and quicker merger disposals, aided by reduced timelines and streamlined p...
Corporate Law : The competition watchdog has initiated further proceedings over widespread flight disruptions, signaling that the matter merits ex...
Corporate Law : The dispute centred on whether the airport taxi operator had exclusive control over transportation services. The Commission relied...
Corporate Law : The Informant alleged unfair subscription cancellation and service deficiencies by an AI platform. The CCI held that the matter wa...
Corporate Law : The CCI found a prima facie case against restrictive contractual clauses that allegedly prevented participants from joining compet...
Corporate Law : The CCI held that allegations relating to vehicle permits, GST remittance, and transport rule violations fall outside the scope of...
Corporate Law : The CCI found that the investigation largely relied on comparisons with diagnostic labs and hotels rather than comparable super-sp...
Corporate Law : The CCI held that restricting warranty services in India to products bought from authorised distributors was unfair and discrimina...
Corporate Law : Summary of the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Cost of Production) Regulations, 2025. Details key changes, defin...
Corporate Law : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) notifies new regulations for recovering monetary penalties, detailing procedures for dem...
Corporate Law : CCI penalizes Meta ₹213.14 crore for abusing dominance through WhatsApp's 2021 Privacy Policy update. Cease-and-desist orders an...
Corporate Law : Clause (f) of Section 19 of the Competition Amendment Act 2023 comes into effect on 19th September 2024, as per the Ministry of Co...
The dispute centred on whether the airport taxi operator had exclusive control over transportation services. The Commission relied on the licence agreement’s non-exclusivity clause and found no prima facie abuse of dominant position.
The CCI held that dominance alone is insufficient to establish a violation under Section 4. The key takeaway is that actual or potential harm to competition must be demonstrated before abuse can be found.
The Informant alleged unfair subscription cancellation and service deficiencies by an AI platform. The CCI held that the matter was essentially a dispute between the parties and did not raise competition law concerns under Section 4.
The CCI found a prima facie case against restrictive contractual clauses that allegedly prevented participants from joining competing pageants and controlled their professional activities. The matter has been referred to the Director General for investigation.
The Competition Commission of India has proposed amendments to address administrative and procedural issues identified during implementation of the commitment framework. The changes seek to improve certainty, transparency, and efficiency in commitment proceedings.
The CCI held that allegations relating to vehicle permits, GST remittance, and transport rule violations fall outside the scope of competition law. The Commission found no prima facie abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act.
The CCI found that the investigation largely relied on comparisons with diagnostic labs and hotels rather than comparable super-specialty hospitals. The Commission ruled that such analysis was insufficient to prove exploitative pricing.
Commission found that patients undergoing elective treatment generally receive estimated treatment costs in advance and retain the ability to choose alternative hospitals. It therefore declined to treat in-patient services as a separate aftermarket under competition law.
The Competition Commission of India held that higher hospital charges alone do not establish abuse of dominance without proof that prices were excessive and unfair. The case against the hospital was closed for lack of sufficient evidence.
The CCI found that the investigation failed to compare hospital charges with similarly placed hospitals and relied on inadequate benchmarks such as standalone labs and hotels. The Commission therefore held that unfair pricing was not conclusively proved.
