https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460172 The court dismissed the appeal, finding the second application under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against the same parties was not maintainable due to lack of new substantial evidence. The Agreement between the parties did not contain anti-competitive clauses under Section 4 of the Act. Additionally, the opposite parties were not deemed to hold a dominant position in the relevant market, thus not contravening Section 4(2)(e). The presence of several significant competitors negated the claim of market dominance. en-us Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:59:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460172 The court dismissed the appeal, finding the second application under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, against the same parties was not maintainable due to lack of new substantial evidence. The Agreement between the parties did not contain anti-competitive clauses under Section 4 of the Act. Additionally, the opposite parties were not deemed to hold a dominant position in the relevant market, thus not contravening Section 4(2)(e). The presence of several significant competitors negated the claim of market dominance. Case-Laws Law of Competition Mon, 22 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460172