https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761955 CCI dismissed allegations against automotive manufacturer and dealer regarding abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive practices. Informant complained about extended delivery times, selective delivery policies, premium demands, resale price maintenance, and forced accessory purchases. CCI found these constituted inter se disputes without market-wide anti-competitive effects. Extended waiting periods were attributed to demand-supply dynamics rather than anti-competitive behavior. Informant failed to substantiate RPM allegations or demonstrate unfair pricing practices. CCI concluded no prima facie case existed under Sections 3 or 4 of Competition Act, 2002, directing closure under Section 26(2). en-us Fri, 12 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Nov 2024 08:59:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761955 CCI dismissed allegations against automotive manufacturer and dealer regarding abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive practices. Informant complained about extended delivery times, selective delivery policies, premium demands, resale price maintenance, and forced accessory purchases. CCI found these constituted inter se disputes without market-wide anti-competitive effects. Extended waiting periods were attributed to demand-supply dynamics rather than anti-competitive behavior. Informant failed to substantiate RPM allegations or demonstrate unfair pricing practices. CCI concluded no prima facie case existed under Sections 3 or 4 of Competition Act, 2002, directing closure under Section 26(2). Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 12 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761955