https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307645 The Commission concluded that there was no contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by Flipkart or Amazon, as the allegations of abuse of dominant position and unfair trade practices were unsubstantiated. The relevant market was defined as "services provided by online marketplace platforms for selling goods in India," and it was determined that no single player held a dominant position. Consequently, the Commission ordered the closure of the information under Section 26(2) of the Act, and the Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the involved parties. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Apr 2023 21:53:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307645 The Commission concluded that there was no contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, by Flipkart or Amazon, as the allegations of abuse of dominant position and unfair trade practices were unsubstantiated. The relevant market was defined as "services provided by online marketplace platforms for selling goods in India," and it was determined that no single player held a dominant position. Consequently, the Commission ordered the closure of the information under Section 26(2) of the Act, and the Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the involved parties. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307645