https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233422 The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case for investigation regarding the alleged contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by the Opposite Party. The analysis determined that the Opposite Party did not hold a dominant position in the relevant market for beauty and wellness services in Gurgaon and Delhi, which was found to be highly fragmented and unorganized. As a result, the case was closed under section 26(2) of the Act, and the parties were informed of this decision. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Nov 2024 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233422 The Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case for investigation regarding the alleged contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by the Opposite Party. The analysis determined that the Opposite Party did not hold a dominant position in the relevant market for beauty and wellness services in Gurgaon and Delhi, which was found to be highly fragmented and unorganized. As a result, the case was closed under section 26(2) of the Act, and the parties were informed of this decision. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233422