TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Competition Commission Finds No Violation; Dismisses Case on Misrepresentation & Service Issues.</h1> <h3>In Re: Col. Arvind Kumar, One97 Communications Ltd., Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Bharti Airtel Limited, Central Bank of India</h3> The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of contravention of the Competition Act, 2002, against any of the parties involved. The ... Abuse of dominance and anti-competitive practices in violation of the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the present case, the Commission observes that alleged disparate disputes raised in the Information appear to be individual/contractual disputes regarding alleged mis-representation/ mis-selling/ deficiency in service against various OPs and do not involve competition concerns as such. Further, no material has been provided by the Informant to indicate violation of any provision of the Act. The nature of disputes raised in the matter do not fall under the ambit of the Act and for redressal of the said grievances, remedy(ies), if any, may lie before an appropriate forum, in accordance with law. The Commission is of the considered view that no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act is made out against any of the OPs in the present matter and decides to close the matter forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Issues:Alleged abuse of dominance and anti-competitive practices by multiple parties in violation of the Competition Act, 2002.Analysis:The Informant filed a complaint against several parties, alleging abuse of dominance and anti-competitive practices. The complaint detailed incidents where the Informant faced issues with payment services provided by OP-1, leading to unauthorized deductions and imposition of postpaid loan facilities without prior consent. Additionally, the Informant encountered problems with OP-2 harassing for recovery of purported outstanding loan amounts. OP-3 was accused of delays in disconnection and raising undue bills on internet/landline connections. Furthermore, OP-4 was criticized for not stopping payments from the Informant's savings bank account despite explicit instructions. The Informant contended that these actions violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.Upon review, the Commission found that the disputes raised by the Informant primarily pertained to individual/contractual issues such as misrepresentation, mis-selling, and service deficiencies. The Commission noted that these disputes did not raise significant competition concerns and lacked evidence of any violation of the Act. Consequently, the Commission determined that the grievances presented did not fall within the purview of the Act and advised seeking redressal through appropriate legal channels.As a result, the Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of contravention of the Act against any of the parties involved. Therefore, the Commission decided to close the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act. The Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the Informant, signaling the end of the proceedings in this particular case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
