https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96979 Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access via co-location facilities and secondary servers were examined; the competition regulator found no prima facie abuse of dominant position because the informant failed to establish overt anti competitive harm or denial of market access to investors, and evidence submitted by the exchange and sectoral expert reports did not support preferential access claims. The regulator permissibly relied on sectoral regulator findings and expert reports in forming its view and therefore declined to direct an investigation. The appellate review upheld that approach and dismissed the challenge to the regulator's decision. en-us Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:24:54 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:24:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96979 Allegations that the exchange granted preferential market access via co-location facilities and secondary servers were examined; the competition regulator found no prima facie abuse of dominant position because the informant failed to establish overt anti competitive harm or denial of market access to investors, and evidence submitted by the exchange and sectoral expert reports did not support preferential access claims. The regulator permissibly relied on sectoral regulator findings and expert reports in forming its view and therefore declined to direct an investigation. The appellate review upheld that approach and dismissed the challenge to the regulator's decision. Highlights Law of Competition Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:24:54 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96979