https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257790 The Commission determined that the real estate companies did not possess a dominant position in the market for residential apartments in Gurgaon, despite allegations of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Consequently, no prima facie case was established, leading to the closure of the case under Section 26(2) of the Act. The decision was based on the analysis of market conditions, including competition from other developers and the companies' land bank size, which did not support the informant's claims of unfair practices and unilateral cancellation. The parties were informed of the closure. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257790 The Commission determined that the real estate companies did not possess a dominant position in the market for residential apartments in Gurgaon, despite allegations of abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Consequently, no prima facie case was established, leading to the closure of the case under Section 26(2) of the Act. The decision was based on the analysis of market conditions, including competition from other developers and the companies' land bank size, which did not support the informant's claims of unfair practices and unilateral cancellation. The parties were informed of the closure. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257790