https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458890 CCI examined allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002, concerning electric two-wheeler manufacturers allegedly manipulating FAME policy subsidies through under-pricing and separate charging for essential components. The relevant market was delineated as manufacture and sale of electric two-wheelers in India. CCI found no single player could exert market power or operate independently of market forces in the relevant market. Consequently, none of the opposite parties held dominant positions. CCI concluded no prima facie case of contravention existed and ordered closure of information under Section 26(2). en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 19:12:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458890 CCI examined allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of Competition Act, 2002, concerning electric two-wheeler manufacturers allegedly manipulating FAME policy subsidies through under-pricing and separate charging for essential components. The relevant market was delineated as manufacture and sale of electric two-wheelers in India. CCI found no single player could exert market power or operate independently of market forces in the relevant market. Consequently, none of the opposite parties held dominant positions. CCI concluded no prima facie case of contravention existed and ordered closure of information under Section 26(2). Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 23 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458890