2019 (11) TMI 1814

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....j, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT BANSI LAL BHAT, J. This appeal arises out of order dated 30th May, 2018 passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as 'CCI') under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') in Case No. 11 of 2018 whereby the information relating to allegations of contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act filed by the Appellant (Informant before CCI) was ordered to be closed on the ground that the existing Dealership Agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 stood expired by efflux of time on 31st December, 2017 due to non-renewal thereof and the Informant had not challenged any term of the aforesaid Dealership Agreement which has since expired. 2. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on in itself is not prohibited, its abuse is proscribed. It is therefore relevant to ascertain whether OP-1 did enjoy a position of strength and was dominant in passenger car segment in India and if so, whether termination of the dealership of Informant ensued the consequence of abuse of such dominant position. 4. Based on information available in public domain, the CCI found that BMW India has negligible share in passenger car segment in India which is dominated by its formidable competitors like 'Maruti', 'Hyundai', 'TATA', etc. who hold a significant market share. Thus, it concluded that BMW India cannot be said to be a dominant player, therefore, question of abuse of dominant position did not at all arise. 5. Heard learned counsel for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ger cars, BMW India enjoyed a dominant position. The material available in public domain which has been considered by the CCI unmistakably demonstrates that BMW India had insignificant presence in the relevant market and BMW passenger cars did not occupy a significant market share. Merely because, the act of refusal on the part of OP-1 to renew dealership of Informant beyond 31st December, 2017 may have caused pecuniary loss to the Informant does not raise any competition concern, even if, the consequence of such termination of dealership has proved advantageous to the dealers of OP-1 in neighbouring states of Gujarat to sell BMW cars to customers hailing from Gujarat. As regards, fiscal loss to the State of Gujarat in the form of Taxes lev....