https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460180 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that OP-1 did not hold a dominant position in the market for residential flats in Lucknow. The presence of other significant developers indicated a competitive environment, negating dominance. Consequently, allegations of abuse of dominant position were dismissed, as such claims require dominance. Additionally, the Tribunal found no evidence of anti-competitive agreements among the Opposite Parties, as per Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Tribunal directed any grievances regarding service deficiencies to be addressed through contractual remedies rather than competition law. en-us Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:44:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460180 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that OP-1 did not hold a dominant position in the market for residential flats in Lucknow. The presence of other significant developers indicated a competitive environment, negating dominance. Consequently, allegations of abuse of dominant position were dismissed, as such claims require dominance. Additionally, the Tribunal found no evidence of anti-competitive agreements among the Opposite Parties, as per Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Tribunal directed any grievances regarding service deficiencies to be addressed through contractual remedies rather than competition law. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 22 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460180