https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785408 Cartelisation under Section 3(3) requires a horizontal agreement between entities engaged in identical or similar trade; an unsupported arrangement involving vertically related entities within the same group does not satisfy that requirement. Abuse of dominant position under Section 4 first requires proof of dominance in the correctly defined relevant market. Prescribing IRC accreditation for vendor-list inclusion, without demonstrated dominance or unfair, discriminatory or exclusionary conduct, does not establish abuse. Investigation by the Director General is not mandatory where the Commission finds no prima facie case on the available material; seeking a reply does not itself require an investigation, and closure under Section 26(2) is valid absent procedural prejudice. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:10:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785408 Cartelisation under Section 3(3) requires a horizontal agreement between entities engaged in identical or similar trade; an unsupported arrangement involving vertically related entities within the same group does not satisfy that requirement. Abuse of dominant position under Section 4 first requires proof of dominance in the correctly defined relevant market. Prescribing IRC accreditation for vendor-list inclusion, without demonstrated dominance or unfair, discriminatory or exclusionary conduct, does not establish abuse. Investigation by the Director General is not mandatory where the Commission finds no prima facie case on the available material; seeking a reply does not itself require an investigation, and closure under Section 26(2) is valid absent procedural prejudice. Case-Laws Law of Competition Tue, 20 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785408