https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457118 The Competition Commission of India closed a case against a stock exchange regarding alleged abuse of dominant position through discriminatory co-location services. The informant claimed certain trading members received preferential access to trading information and price feeds despite uniform fees being charged to all members. While the Commission acknowledged that the exchange's policy required non-discriminatory provision of co-location services and that discriminatory conduct falls within its jurisdiction, it found insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Commission noted lack of adequate information about the exchange's role in providing allegedly discriminatory services and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2024 20:52:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457118 The Competition Commission of India closed a case against a stock exchange regarding alleged abuse of dominant position through discriminatory co-location services. The informant claimed certain trading members received preferential access to trading information and price feeds despite uniform fees being charged to all members. While the Commission acknowledged that the exchange's policy required non-discriminatory provision of co-location services and that discriminatory conduct falls within its jurisdiction, it found insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Commission noted lack of adequate information about the exchange's role in providing allegedly discriminatory services and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457118