https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257838 The Commission concluded that the opposing party (OP) did not hold a dominant position in the relevant market for residential apartments in Noida and Greater Noida. Despite multiple informants alleging abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, the Commission found that the presence of other real estate developers, lack of entry barriers, and consumer independence from the OP negated the existence of dominance. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were dismissed, and the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, with instructions to notify all concerned parties. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257838 The Commission concluded that the opposing party (OP) did not hold a dominant position in the relevant market for residential apartments in Noida and Greater Noida. Despite multiple informants alleging abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, the Commission found that the presence of other real estate developers, lack of entry barriers, and consumer independence from the OP negated the existence of dominance. Consequently, the allegations of abuse were dismissed, and the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, with instructions to notify all concerned parties. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257838