https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307671 The Commission concluded that there were no violations of the Competition Act in the allegations against the Opposite Parties (OPs) concerning restrictions on online sales, the Market Infiltration Policy (MIP), Minimum Operation Price (MOP) practices, and alleged cartel facilitation at the retailer level. The Commission determined that the restrictions did not adversely affect competition, as Vivo products were available through multiple channels, and the MIP and MOP policies did not lead to an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC). Furthermore, the cartel allegation lacked evidence. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, with no action taken against the OPs. en-us Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Apr 2023 21:10:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307671 The Commission concluded that there were no violations of the Competition Act in the allegations against the Opposite Parties (OPs) concerning restrictions on online sales, the Market Infiltration Policy (MIP), Minimum Operation Price (MOP) practices, and alleged cartel facilitation at the retailer level. The Commission determined that the restrictions did not adversely affect competition, as Vivo products were available through multiple channels, and the MIP and MOP policies did not lead to an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC). Furthermore, the cartel allegation lacked evidence. Consequently, the case was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, with no action taken against the OPs. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307671