Sectoral regulation does not bar competition scrutiny; absence of dominance defeated predatory pricing and market access claims.

Compliance with telecom regulation was held to operate independently from competition law, so the mere ence of a sectoral regulator did not oust CCI jurisdiction or require a reference under Section 21A. The Commission treated such reference as discretionary and found no need to invoke it. On the merits, it defined the relevant market as internet exchange services in India and found the market contestable, with no material showing that the opposite party could influence the market in its favour. As dominance was not established, the allegations of predatory pricing and denial of market access were not pursued and the competition complaint was closed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of a sectoral regulator ousted the Commission's jurisdiction or warranted a reference under Section 21A; (ii) Whether the opposite party was dominant in the relevant market and had abused such position by predatory pricing and denial of market access.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of a sectoral regulator ousted the Commission's jurisdiction or warranted a reference under Section 21A.

Analysis: The Commission held that compliance with the telecom regulatory framework and compliance with competition law operate independently. The mere existence of sectoral regulation does not completely oust the Commission's jurisdiction where the allegations concern abuse of dominance and other conduct examinable under the Competition Act. The Commission also noted that invocation of Section 21A is discretionary and need not be made merely because a sectoral regulator exists.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection on jurisdiction was rejected, and no reference under Section 21A was found necessary.

Issue (ii): Whether the opposite party was dominant in the relevant market and had abused such position by predatory pricing and denial of market access.

Analysis: The Commission delineated the relevant market as provision of internet exchange services in India. On the material placed, it found that the market was contestable and that the informant had substantial presence in terms of traffic, IX points and connected networks in the cities considered. The record did not establish that the opposite party enjoyed a position enabling it to affect the market in its favour. Since dominance itself was not established, the allegation of predatory pricing and denial of market access was not taken further.

Conclusion: Dominance of the opposite party was not established, and the abuse allegations failed.

Final Conclusion: The matter was closed at the threshold under the Commission's summary powers, with no competition contravention made out on the facts placed before it.

Ratio Decidendi: Sectoral regulation does not by itself exclude competition law scrutiny, but an abuse-of-dominance case must first establish dominance in the properly delineated relevant market before any pricing or denial-of-access allegation can succeed.

---