https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401822 The Competition Act, 2002 permits information from any person in public-interest proceedings, and the concept of a "person aggrieved" for appeal is to be read broadly; the informant's appeal against closure was therefore maintainable. On merits, anti-competitive conduct was not established because there was no agreement or meeting of minds, no hub-and-spoke cartel, no price-fixing arrangement, and no resale price maintenance. The algorithmic pricing model and platform arrangements did not by themselves prove a contravention, and dominance of either enterprise was not shown, so the allegations under sections 3 and 4 failed. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401822 The Competition Act, 2002 permits information from any person in public-interest proceedings, and the concept of a "person aggrieved" for appeal is to be read broadly; the informant's appeal against closure was therefore maintainable. On merits, anti-competitive conduct was not established because there was no agreement or meeting of minds, no hub-and-spoke cartel, no price-fixing arrangement, and no resale price maintenance. The algorithmic pricing model and platform arrangements did not by themselves prove a contravention, and dominance of either enterprise was not shown, so the allegations under sections 3 and 4 failed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401822