https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285129 The Commission concluded that the Opposite Party (OP) did not hold a dominant position in the radio taxi services market in Bengaluru, primarily due to competitive constraints posed by Uber and the dynamic nature of the market. Consequently, the allegations of predatory pricing under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, could not be substantiated, as dominance is a prerequisite for such a finding. Furthermore, the Commission found no evidence of exclusivity conditions imposed on drivers, dismissing any contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act. The OP's pricing strategy was deemed part of a competitive process in an evolving market. As a result, the cases were closed with no findings of abuse of dominant position or anti-competitive conduct. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:54:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285129 The Commission concluded that the Opposite Party (OP) did not hold a dominant position in the radio taxi services market in Bengaluru, primarily due to competitive constraints posed by Uber and the dynamic nature of the market. Consequently, the allegations of predatory pricing under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, could not be substantiated, as dominance is a prerequisite for such a finding. Furthermore, the Commission found no evidence of exclusivity conditions imposed on drivers, dismissing any contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act. The OP's pricing strategy was deemed part of a competitive process in an evolving market. As a result, the cases were closed with no findings of abuse of dominant position or anti-competitive conduct. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285129