https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275719 A vertical agreement between a hospital and a stem cell bank was analysed under the Competition Act, 2002 for alleged foreclosure of the stem cell banking market. The material did not prove appreciable adverse effect on competition because the record did not support market foreclosure, the complainant evidence was weak, and the bank could still enroll patients through other hospitals, so liability under Section 3 was not established. Dominance was also not proved, as the relevant market definition was too narrow and unsupported by reliable evidence, so the abuse claim under Section 4 failed. Penalty could not be based on the hospital's entire turnover because any conduct, if at all, was limited to the relevant service segment. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 14 Oct 2018 18:42:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275719 A vertical agreement between a hospital and a stem cell bank was analysed under the Competition Act, 2002 for alleged foreclosure of the stem cell banking market. The material did not prove appreciable adverse effect on competition because the record did not support market foreclosure, the complainant evidence was weak, and the bank could still enroll patients through other hospitals, so liability under Section 3 was not established. Dominance was also not proved, as the relevant market definition was too narrow and unsupported by reliable evidence, so the abuse claim under Section 4 failed. Penalty could not be based on the hospital's entire turnover because any conduct, if at all, was limited to the relevant service segment. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275719