https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762015 CCI closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, finding no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position against DAE and IREL. The Commission held that DAE is exempted from the definition of "enterprise" under Section 2(h) read with Allocation of Business Rules, placing it outside the Act's purview. IREL was found to have no role in renewal of off-take agreements, rejection of import licenses, or non-approval of alternate disposal plans. No relief under Section 33 was warranted. en-us Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2024 07:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762015 CCI closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, finding no prima facie case of abuse of dominant position against DAE and IREL. The Commission held that DAE is exempted from the definition of "enterprise" under Section 2(h) read with Allocation of Business Rules, placing it outside the Act's purview. IREL was found to have no role in renewal of off-take agreements, rejection of import licenses, or non-approval of alternate disposal plans. No relief under Section 33 was warranted. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762015