https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233423 The appeal was dismissed as the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found the respondent did not hold a dominant position in the market for financing commercial vehicles. The CCI corrected the relevant market definition initially provided by the Director General. Allegations of excessive interest rates and duress in obtaining the loan were not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the case. The informant failed to provide evidence of the respondent's dominance, and the claim of signing a new agreement under duress lacked support. The CCI's decision was upheld due to the lack of evidence and absence of dominance by the respondent. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233423 The appeal was dismissed as the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found the respondent did not hold a dominant position in the market for financing commercial vehicles. The CCI corrected the relevant market definition initially provided by the Director General. Allegations of excessive interest rates and duress in obtaining the loan were not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the case. The informant failed to provide evidence of the respondent's dominance, and the claim of signing a new agreement under duress lacked support. The CCI's decision was upheld due to the lack of evidence and absence of dominance by the respondent. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233423