2017 (9) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inst order dated 27th February, 2017 passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') under 'Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Case No.85 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the Commission held that though the appellant is in a 'dominant position', it has not abused that position but passed certain order and directions. 2. The information was filed by Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent! Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act against Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation. The Respondent/ Informa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of Section 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Respondent/ Informant further took plea that the fares notified by the Government of Karnataka are applicable on the buses operated by the private bus operators including the respondent. 4. The Commission, -after hearing the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration other aspects, came to a specific conclusion that the Appellant-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is dominant in the relevant market, but North West State Road Transport Corporation (Opposite Party No. 2 before the Commission) cannot be said to be 'dominant'. The Commission, after taking into consideration the relevant facts, General Standing Order issued under No.760/ 2014-15, dated 9th Janu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re acceptable besides obviating any possible violations of the provisions of the Act and challenge thereto. Let such exercise be completed preferably within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order." 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3/Commission and learned counsel appearing on behalf Respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 7. In the present case, the. 1st Respondent/ Informant has not challenged the impugned order and thereby the finding given by the Commission with regard to 'dominant position' of the Appellant and that the allegation of unfair and anti-competitive activities is not proved, has reached finality. Otherwise also, we find no ....