https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761961 The CCI dismissed allegations of unlawful share seizure and monopolization of cable TV network business in Chhattisgarh against multiple opposite parties. The Commission found Section 3(3) inapplicable as it requires two or more enterprises in identical/similar trade, which was absent. For Section 4 violations, the CCI noted that joint/collective dominance inquiries are not provided under the Act. Without establishing contraventions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002, the information was closed under Section 26(2), and relief under Section 33 was rejected. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:59:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761961 The CCI dismissed allegations of unlawful share seizure and monopolization of cable TV network business in Chhattisgarh against multiple opposite parties. The Commission found Section 3(3) inapplicable as it requires two or more enterprises in identical/similar trade, which was absent. For Section 4 violations, the CCI noted that joint/collective dominance inquiries are not provided under the Act. Without establishing contraventions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002, the information was closed under Section 26(2), and relief under Section 33 was rejected. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761961