The Article deals with Definition,Abuse of Dominant Position,Dominant Factors in Relevant Market and its analysis with Recent Cases regarding Competition Act,2002
Dominant Position :Competition Law(Competition Act,2002)
1. ASSIGNMENT
ON
DOMINANT POSITION : DEFINITION,ABUSE OF DOMINANT
POSITION,DOMINANT FACTORS IN RELEVANT MARKET AND CASE
STUDY
SUBJECT
COMPETITION LAW(BL6-903)
SUBMITTED BY
BIBHU KAIBALYA MANIK
ROLL NO: 1685005/2016, LL.M
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
SUBMITTED TO
KUMUD MALVIYA
Assistant Professor, School of Law
KIIT University
2. DOMINANT POSITION
1
CONTENT
1. CHAPTER - I---------------------------------------------------------------------3-5
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1.3 HYPOTHESIS
1.4 RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.5 METHODOLOGY
1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW
2. CHAPTER - II---------------------------------------------------------------------6-7
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO DOMINANT POSITION
2.2 HOW DOMINANT POSITION CAN BE OBTAINED
3. CHAPTER - III-------------------------------------------------------------------8-10
3.1 ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION
3.2 RELEVANT MARKET
3.3 RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKET
3.4 RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKET
4. CHAPTER - IV-------------------------------------------------------------------11-13
4.1 DOMINACE FACTOR IN THE RELEVANT MARKET
4.1.1 SECTION 19(4) OF COMPETITION ACT,2002
3. DOMINANT POSITION
2
5. CHAPTER - V---------------------------------------------------------------------14-18
5.1 ANALYSIS OF CASES REGARDNG DOMINANT POSITION
5.1.1 Belaire Owners’ Association Vs. DLF Limited, HUDA & Ors.
5.1.2 M/S Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited V/S M/S Ani Technology Private Limited
5.1.3 Anti-competitive Practices of Google
5.1.4 Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited (MTSPL) v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
6. CHAPTER - VI------------------------------------------------------------------------19
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY--------------------------------------------------------------------20
4. DOMINANT POSITION
3
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
Dominant position as being created when one or more undertakings in a particular market use
their position in that market to determine economic parameters such as price, supply, the amount
of production and distribution, by acting independently of their competitors and customers. A
firm is in a dominant position if it has the ability to behave independently of its competitors,
customers, suppliers and, ultimately, the final consumer.The competition laws of the countries
focuses on all activities be it multilateral activity or unilateral activity i.e. abuse of dominant
position in the market. The extent of dominance can be defined as the position of strength
enjoyed by an undertaking that enables it to operate independently of the competitive pressure in
the relevant market and also affects the relevant market, competitors and consumers by its action.
The impact on the market including barriers to new entrants is to be taken into account.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
To understand the meaning of Dominant position in the market.
To explore the legal provisions established for prohibition of Abuse of dominant position.
To overview the cases filed before Competition Commission of India regarding the abuse of
Dominant position in India.
HYPOTHESIS
It may be hypothesized that the Indian framework for Competition Law prohibits the abuse of
Dominant Position to maintain competitiveness in the market for every kind of market players.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The title of the act that is Competition Act,2002 gives an impression as if the act is a
comprehensive code of law relating to Competition .However,this is seeming impression does
seem to be true .The Competition act is partly got succeed by in preventing abuse of Dominant
5. DOMINANT POSITION
4
Position but due to lack of awareness and efficiency the dispute resolve mechanism is
functioning in less effective way. .
METHODOLOGY
The research paper presents the various aspects of dominant position and how the legal
framework is made to prevent abuse of dominant position in the market . The methodological
approach used in the research paper is doctrinal and case study method.The data used in the
research is collected from both primary,secondary and tertiary sources to make analysis and to
approve or disapprove the hypothesis.The primary sources of data used are court
decisions,Acts,statutes. Secondary sources of data used are relevant Articles and books of
law.The tertiary data used are relevant information regarding dominant position available from
internet sources.The hypothesis is tested through doctrinal method and case studies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In “Abuse Of Dominant Position1
”by “Shilpi”exlpained that Dominance relates to a position of
economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition
being maintained on relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent
independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers. Dominance means
acquisition of significant market power, which enables the enterprise to increase the price or
limit production independently of competitors as well as customers. Dominant position has to be
determined in the relevant market and the factors for such determination are provided in the Act.
Dominance is not treated bad per se; it is the abuse of dominant position which is prohibited.The
anti –competitive business practices in which a dominant firm may engage in order to maintain
or increase its position on the market. Competition law prohibits such behaviour, as it damages
true competitions between firms, exploits consumers and makes it unnecessary for the dominant
undertaking to compete with the other firms on the merits.The Article mostly delas with the
critical analysis of Domiant Position and abuse of it and role of domianat position in relevant
market rather than legal framework .
1
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/abuse-o-dominant-position-729-1.html
6. DOMINANT POSITION
5
In “Assessment Of Dominance : Issues And Challenges Under The Indian Competition Act,
20022
”by “Mr. G.r. Bhatia” Determination of dominance of an enterprise or group in the
relevant market is a pre requisite to enquire into abuse thereof. India, in line with international
trend, has bid farewell to the arithmetical criteria of 25 per cent market share (as it exists in the
MRTP Act, 1969) to label an undertaking as "dominant" and has opted for combined structural
cum behavioural approach as the Competition Act, 2002 mandates the CCI to look into host of
factors which give rise to enormous issues and challenges in deciding "dominance". Further,
erroneous determination will discourage firms from pursuing pro competitive conducts while
erroneous non determination of dominance will allow the enterprise to perpetuate with
exploitative and exclusionary conducts. The need is to strike a balance to avoid both types of
error.The article mostly deals with the legal frame work for Domianat Position and law provided
in the Competition act,2002 and MRTP act,1969.
2
http://www.manupatrafast .com/ articles / PopOpenArticle .aspx?ID =8de19f8a - 5bbd-42b6- a96a- 692a0f
376625&txtsearch = Subject:%20Commercial
7. DOMINANT POSITION
6
CHAPTER-II
INTRODUCTION TO DOMINANT POSITION
Dominant position in Competition act,2002 is defined as “a position of strength, enjoyed by an
enterprise, in the relevant market, in India, which enables it to
(i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or
(ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.”3
The act deals with the abuse of Dominant position which is prohibited 4
.The term Dominance in
the market is explained in various way.In United Brands Company and United Brands
Continental BV v Commission of the European Communities5
the European court defines
dominance as :
“A position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective
competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an
appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers”
The High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law in para 4.4.5 defines Dominance as
“position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market in India, which enables it
to:6
(i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or
(ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. “
3
Section 4,Explanation (a),Competition Act,2002
4
Section 4 of Competition Act,2002
5
Case 27/76,1978,Eur Lex Acess to European Union Law, (March 22.2017, 11:34 AM) , http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61976CJ0027
6
www.manupatrafast.com,(March 22. 2017,11:55AM),
http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=8de19f8a-5bbd-42b6-
a96a692a0f376625&txtsearch=Subject:%20Commercial
8. DOMINANT POSITION
7
There are certain factors by which a Dominant position can be determined .Essentially a lack of
rivalry in the market s one of the reason.Competitive pressure from rival firms usually 'keeps
firms honest', preventing them from charging prices which are excessively above costs. Without
competitive pressure a dominant firm has market power and so is able to profitably raise prices
and restrict output.
How Dominant Position Can be obtained
A dominant position may, in part, be obtained through:
A firm gaining market share by being more efficient than competitors and better at product
and process innovations
A firm buying out or merging with competitors
A state owned enterprise
is positive and part of the competitive process. The lure of greater profits is an incentive to
innovate and increase market share
can be positive or negative which is why many jurisdictions regulate merger activity
So holding a dominant position is not outlawed (although it is controlled where
possible).Abusing a dominant position is outlawed.So Dominant position is ability to operate
independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market which affect its
competitor/consumers/relevant market
9. DOMINANT POSITION
8
CHAPTER-III
ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION
The concept of abuse is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a
dominant position which is such as to influence the structure of a market where , as a result of
the very presence of the undertaking in question.The degree of competition is weakened and
which , through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in
products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators , has the effect of
hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth
of that competition.
The philosophy of the Competition Act is that a situation of monopoly per se is not against
public policy but, rather, the use of the monopoly status such that it operates to the detriment of
potential and actual competitors. At this point it is worth mentioning that the Competition Act
does not prohibit or restrict enterprises from coming into dominance. There is no control
whatsoever to prevent enterprises from coming into or acquiring position of dominance. All that
the Act prohibits is the abuse of that dominant position. The Act therefore targets the abuse of
dominance and not dominance per se .
For instance in EU laws in N.V. Netherlands Banden Industrie Michelin vs Commission of
the European Communities7
it is observed that a finding that an undertaking has a dominant
position is not a recrimination but simply means that irrespective of the reasons for which it has
such a dominant position, the undertaking concerned has a special responsibility not to allow its
conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition in the common market. In United States vs.
International Harvester Co.8
the court citing the case of United States vs. United States steel
Corp9
observed that law does not make mere size of corporation, however impressive, or the
7
Case 322/81,ECLI:EU:C:1983:313,http://www.legalservicesindia.com,(March 23.2017,12:14 PM) ,
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/abuse-o-dominant-position-729-1.html
8
274 U.S. 693 (1927), supreme.justia.com,(March 23.2017, 12:34 P.M) ,https:// supreme.justia. com/ cases/federal
/us/274/693/case.html
9
251 U.S. 417 (1920),supreme.justia.com, (March 23.2017, 2:45 PM) https:// supreme. justia.com/ cases/federal
/us/251/417/
10. DOMINANT POSITION
9
existence of unexterted power on its part, an offense when accompanied by unlawful conduct in
the exercise of its power. The laws of most jurisdictions prohibit the abuse of dominant
position/misuse of market power by enterprises.
Section 4 of Competition Act,2002 defines about the abuse of Dominant position which is
prohibited by law . As defined in such section :
There shall be no abuse of dominant position . It can be considered as dominant position if ,
Imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions
Predatory pricing, limit production, deny market access
Contracts contingent on supplementary obligation
Use dominance in one market to move into or protect other relevant market (product &
geography)
Limiting or restricitng
Production of goods
Technical or scientific development
Indulges in practical resulting in denial of market access
Makes conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by other parties of supplementary
obligations
Uses its dominant position in one relevant market to enter into,or protect other relevant
market.
Predatory Price - It means the sale of goods or provision of services, at a. price which is
below the cost, as may be determined by regulations, of production of the goods or provision
of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors.10
10
Section 4,Explanation (b) , Competition Act,2002
11. DOMINANT POSITION
10
Relevant Market - It means the market which may be determined by the Commission with
reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to
both the markets.11
Relevant Geographic Market- It means a market comprising the area in which the conditions
of competition for supply of goods or provision of services or demand of goods or services are
distinctly homogeneous and can be distinguished from the conditions prevailing in the
neighbouring areas12
Relevant Product Market- It means a market comprising all those products or services which
are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of characteristics of
the products or services, their prices and intended use.13
11
Section 2(r) of Competition Act,2002
12
Section 2(s) of Competition Act,2002
13
Section 2(t) pf Competition Act,2002
12. DOMINANT POSITION
11
CHAPTER-IV
DOMINANCE FACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET
The Competition Commission of India shall, while inquiring whether an enterprise enjoys a
dominant position or not under section 4, have due regard to all or any of the following
factors14
, namely
Market share of the enterprise- After determining the relevant market, the next step in
determining "dominance" is to assess market share of enterprise or group. Different
parameters are employed to measure market share depending upon the nature of sector and
the issue under investigation.
Size and resources of the enterprise- Large size and superior financial position or resources
may be a contributing factor to a dominant market position.
Size and importance of the competitors - When looking at market share it is also relevant to
look at the largest firm's market share relative to its competitors; the smaller the shares of the
competitors, it would be advisable to hold that the largest firm as dominant. Market share of
one competitor in the market also determine the competition constraint on the another player
Economic power of the enterprise including commercial advantages over competitors -
Superior market position or resources may be a contributing factor to a dominant market
position.
Vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or service network of such enterprises - The
vertical integration and the benefit of well-established distribution system may act as barrier
to entry as it can discourage or impede access for a potential entrant to the market
Dependence of consumers on the enterprise - In public utilities, the dependence of
consumers is invariably high.
Monopoly or dominant position whether acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue
of being a Government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise - A
14
Section 19(4) of Competition Act,2002
13. DOMINANT POSITION
12
former state monopoly later on facing competition from new entrants, may have inherited
advantages like a strong financial position, control of certain network facilities, connections
and political support or established relations with suppliers and customers and such
dominant firm may make life of new entrants difficult and may oust them out of market. The
imbalance between a former state monopolist and the new entrants have been noticed
globally
Entry barriers including barriers such as regulatory barriers, financial risk, high capital cost
of entry, marketing entry barriers, technical entry barriers, economies of scale, high cost
of substitutable goods or service for consumers;
Countervailing buying power - An enterprise may be constrained not only by actual and
potential competitors but also by its customers. A buyer enjoying monopsony can tame a
dominant supplier to exercise market power. If there are competitors with adequate
capacities to meet demand, a buyer's threat to switch to another supplier may have a
considerable disciplinary effect on a supplier that sells a major part of its production to a
single buyer. A strong buyer may pave the way for new entry or lead existing suppliers in
the market to expand their output so as to defeat the exercise of market power not only to its
own benefit but also to the benefit of other buyers and consumers.
Market structure and size of market - Market structure which is characterised by a sole
supplier of goods/services either on standalone basis or by virtue of common ownership,
makes conditions conducive to exercise market power affecting competition, consumers or
market.
Social obligations and social costs - This factor gives flexibility to Commission to take into
account social obligations performed by an entity. There is greater realisation more than ever
before that business house is trustee of society. The profit for profit's sake is becoming a
dirty word and focus of future business is on ethics, governance beside quest for
sustainability, conservation of energy etc
Relative advantage,by way of the contribution to the economic development, by the
enterprise enjoying a dominant position having or likely to have an appreciable adverse
effect on competition;
14. DOMINANT POSITION
13
Any other factor which the Commission may consider relevant for the inquiry - This
residuary clause gives ample scope to the Commission to take into account any other factor
which it may deem fit for the inquiry. Price and profit level are also used in some
jurisdictions as a relevant factor while assessing dominance but some jurisdiction caution
about potential error in using them as determining competitive price or profit is extremely
difficult and further exorbitant price or profit is viewed as inducement to others to enter into
the market. Access to essential inputs on long-term basis may be in favour of assessing
dominance.
15. DOMINANT POSITION
14
CHAPTER-V
ANALYSIS OF CASES REGARDING DOMINANT POSITION
Belaire Owners’ Association Vs. DLF Limited, HUDA & Ors.15
Facts of The Case
DLF has launched a Group Housing Complex (The Belaire) in Gurgaon, planned to construct 5
multistoried residential buildings. In its initial plan, DLF designed five multi-storied buildings
which would consist of only 19 floors with a total of 368 apartments to be constructed within a
period of 36 months. In May 2010, the informant filed an instant case under Section 19(1) (a) of
the Competition Act, 2002 and alleged that DLF, by abusing its dominant position, imposed
highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable conditions on the informant through its agreements. As
a matter of fact, the rights of the informant in this agreement were affected by the DLF. The
Informant .further alleged that the various clauses of the house agreement had imposed unilateral
and one sided clauses and the action of DLF pursuant thereto was prima facie unfair and
discriminatory, thus attracting the provisions of Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act.
Analysis by CCI and COMPAT
The commission analysis, as per the Section 4 (a) and Section 4 (a) (ii), DLF position of
dominance in the relevant market cannot be ignored as its advantages of over competitors in size
and resources, and concluded “DLF operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in
the relevant market or to affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.
DLF had a clear early mover's advantage and occupies a leadership position as real estate is a
sector with natural entry barriers due to high cost of land and brand value of incumbent market
leaders.
The CCI held that DLF has resorted to malpractice in the agreement and its acts of abuse of
dominance position can be clearly seen in this case. The abuse was alleged to be committed by
imposing
15
Case No. 19/2010,indiankanoon.org,(March 23.2017,6:54 PM)https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143869586/
16. DOMINANT POSITION
15
unfair conditions on the buyer through the Provisional Booking agreement, which is signed by
the buyer after having paid substantial costs, therefore, DLF leaving no option to the buyer to
object to loop-sided provisions of the agreement.
On this case, CCI held that DLF has contravened the section 4 (2) (a) (i) and (ii), directly and
indirectly, imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions in the sale of services. CCI found DLF
guilty of abusing its dominant position in the market and imposed a penalty of Rs. 630 crores on
DLF. The CCI further directed DLF to cease and desist from formulating and imposing such
unfair conditions in its Agreement with buyers in Gurgaon and to suitably modify unfair
conditions imposed on its buyers as referred to above, within 3 months of the date of receipt of
the order on DLF.
DLF Further Appealed in COMPAT for modification of agreement. The case is still pending.
M/S Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited V/S M/S Ani Technology Private Limited16
Brief Facts
1. M/s Fast Track Call Cab Pvt. Ltd., the “Informant”, filed a complaint against M/s ANI
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the “Opposite Party”, alleging that the Opposite Party acted in
contravention of Section 3 (Anti-competitive agreements) and Section 4 (Abuse of
Dominant position) by engaging in the practice of predatory pricing.
2. The Informant claims on the basis of an article published on ‘vccircle.com’ that the opposite
party received investment worth of over $ 276 million from various companies and that this
amount is being utilised to unleash a series of abusive practices of unfair condition and
predatory pricing. The Opposite Party, as claimed by the Informant, enjoys a dominant
position as it has 43% of the active fleet in Bengaluru with 47% of the market share and has
acquired the business of ‘Taxi for Sure’, making its share about 69% in the relevant market.
3. Informant also states that the Opposite Party is abusing its dominant position by
incentivising its drivers in an unrealistic manner and also providing the customers with
16
Case No. 06 of 2015 ,CCI ,halphalegalupdates.blogspot.in,(March 23.2017, 7:18 PM) http:// alphalegalupdates.blogspot.in
/2015/11/ms-fast-track-call-cab-private-limited.html
17. DOMINANT POSITION
16
equally unrealistic discounts with the help of the money received by the foreign investments.
It is difficult for the other existing radio cab operators to match the standards of the Opposite
Party.
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Opposite Party has abused its dominant position in as given under Section 4 of
the Competition Act, 2002 by indulging in the malpractice of predatory pricing?
Decision of the Commission
1. The Commission established ‘Radio taxi services’ as the relevant market. It held that
geographic market will be different for each city as the operations of cabs is restricted to city
limits; in this case Bengaluru. Thus, the relevant market was established as ‘Radio Taxi
services in the city of Bengaluru’.
2. The Commission was also of the opinion that Opposite Party enjoyed a dominant position in
the relevant market owing to the acquisition of another service provider, Taxi for Sure, due
to which its market share in the relevant market went up to 69%.
3. On the issue of the Opposite Party offering unrealistic incentives to its drivers, the
Commission was of the opinion that it is not concerned with the exclusion of other players
from the market on the grounds of inefficiency. However the abusive practice of predatory
pricing was taken up as under Section 4(2) of the Competition Act.
4. On the basis of the material placed on record, on an average, the Opposite Party spent
around Rs. 574 per trip but the average revenue was Rs. 344, creating a loss of Rs. 230 on an
average. Thus, the Commission was of the opinion that this indicated predatory pricing
aiming to eliminate other competitors from the relevant market.
5. The conduct of the Opposite Party, according to the Competition Commission of India,
resulted in abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the above mentioned Act.
6. The Commission ordered an investigation as per Section 26(1) of the Competition Act for
fixing liability with respect to the contravention of the said Act.On 6th
August, 2015, the
Chairman of the CCI started that the investigation in this matter is at the preliminary stage.
18. DOMINANT POSITION
17
7. The Case is still pending .
Anti-competitive Practices of Google17
An investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has claimed that the US-based
Internet giant Google Inc allegedly “abused its dominance” in the Indian market by incorporating
clauses in its agreements with users that restricted them from availing services of third-party
search engines.The probe by the DG (Director General, Investigations), ordered by the CCI in
2012, also found that some agreements the company had with other parties incorporated a “one-
sided clause relating to termination, possible for only those players who are dominant”. The
competition watchdog has sent its findings to Google and asked for its response by September
10,2012.If found guilty, CCI an impose a penalty of up to 10 per cent of the company’s three-
year annual average turnover, as per the Competition Act.CCI imposed a fine of Rs 1 crore on
Google for non-cooperation in the investigation.CCI ordered an investigation after CUTS, a
consumer rights website, in 2011, and BharatMatrimony.com, a matchmaking portal, in 2012,
filed complaints with the commission against the alleged abuse of dominance by Google. The
matchmaking portal alleged that the company had discriminatory and retaliatory trade practices
related to its AdWords program, which is Google’s key revenue source where it sells keywords
to advertisers and displays them in the form of ads online. During the probe, DG CCI sought
comments from several third parties including Flipkart, MakeMyTrip.com, and Facebook.
Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited (MTSPL) v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.18
In this case, Meru's averment against Uber was its dominance in the relevant market in so far as
its incentive policy is not based upon any economically justified consideration, but solely to gain
and maintain the fidelity of the taxi owners and to prevent passengers/customers from obtaining
radio taxi services from other radio taxi services operators.Further, Meru alleged that Uber's
loyalty inducing incentive schemes have or are likely to have an exclusionary effect in the
relevant market to the detriment of other competitors.In addition to the payments to drivers, Uber
17
indianexpress.com,(March 23.2017, 9:10 PM),http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/
google-misusing-search-dominance-in-india-says-dg-report-to-cci/
18
Case No. 96 of 2015 ,CCI,www.mondaq.com,(March 23.2017,10:14 P.M) http:// www.mondaq.com /india/x/561928/
Cartels+Monopolies/Indian+Antitrust+Scenario+Year+In+Review+2016
19. DOMINANT POSITION
18
is said to be offering huge discounts and benefits to its consumers which are difficult for
similarly placed players to match.However, on 7 December 2016, the COMPAT reversed the
CCI's order and directed the DG to investigate the matter on the grounds that relevant market
was incorrectly defined by the CCI, in addition to fact that the size of discounts and incentives
offered by Uber suggest either phenomenal efficiency improvements replacing existing business
models with the new business models or the possibility of an anti-competitive stance to it. The
Commission is of the view that no case of contravention is made out against Uber Group under
Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. Accordingly, this case is hereby directed to be closed under Section
26(2) of the Act.
20. DOMINANT POSITION
19
CHAPTER-VI
CONCLUSION
Unhesitatingly, protecting consumers and ensuring freedom of businesses and to engage in
economic conduct free from abuse by dominant firms will contribute to economic development
but determining dominance of a firm or group is highly subjective and complex. It is more
challenging for a new agency of an emerging economy of India. There are no hard and fast rules
to determine dominance.Erroneous determination of dominance will discourage firms from
pursuing pro-competitive conducts. Erroneous non-determination of dominance will allow them
to perpetuate with exploitative and exclusionary conducts. Thus, CCI needs to strike a balance to
avoid both types of error. Though there are many cases which are dealt by CCI to prevent
dominant position yet many cases are pending . The awareness in the market regarding dominant
position is not fully developed. Competition act achieved its objective in some extent bu not
fully .Still Small Market players are becoming victimized by Dominant market players.Though
CCI set examples in the competitive market by resolving certain issues yet the procedure is time
consuming . The faster resolve of issues will be more effective.
