https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761950 The Commission concluded that no anti-competitive agreement existed among the Opposite Parties, leading to the closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The evidence provided by the Informant failed to establish contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, as commercial considerations primarily influenced purchase decisions. Consequently, the reliefs sought under Section 33, including compensation and permission for promotional activities, were not granted. The Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the Informant, effectively concluding the case. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:15:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761950 The Commission concluded that no anti-competitive agreement existed among the Opposite Parties, leading to the closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The evidence provided by the Informant failed to establish contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, as commercial considerations primarily influenced purchase decisions. Consequently, the reliefs sought under Section 33, including compensation and permission for promotional activities, were not granted. The Secretary was instructed to communicate this decision to the Informant, effectively concluding the case. Case-Laws Law of Competition Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761950