https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221129 The majority decision of the Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of abuse of dominance by the opposing party (OP) in the relevant market of 'development of commercial/office space in the region of Delhi,' resulting in the closure of the proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission determined that the OP was not dominant due to the presence of multiple competitors. However, a dissenting opinion identified a distinct relevant market in the Najafgarh area of Delhi, asserting that the OP held a dominant position and abused it by imposing onerous terms, thus recommending a Director General investigation. en-us Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221129 The majority decision of the Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of abuse of dominance by the opposing party (OP) in the relevant market of 'development of commercial/office space in the region of Delhi,' resulting in the closure of the proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission determined that the OP was not dominant due to the presence of multiple competitors. However, a dissenting opinion identified a distinct relevant market in the Najafgarh area of Delhi, asserting that the OP held a dominant position and abused it by imposing onerous terms, thus recommending a Director General investigation. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221129