Sanjeev Pandey v. Mahendra & Mahendra & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Commission dismissed a complaint alleging abuse of dominant position by Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. regarding restricted availability of XUV 500 vehicles in Rajasthan. The Court held no prima facie case for investigation.
What did the court decide?
Matter closed under section 26(2); no investigation directed.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No.17/2012
Dated 03!05120i2
Sanjeev Pandey V.
... Informant
Mahendra & Mahendra & Ors. ... Opposite Parties
Order under section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002
The present information has been filed before the Commission by Sanjeev Pandey, practicing advocate based at Jaipur ('the informant) under section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) against the Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd. (O.P. No. 1), the manufacturer of vehicle named XUV 500, alleging that it was selling the vehicle only in the selected metropolitan cities in India and denying its availability to its dealers in the State of Rajasthan where this vehicle was required more than the other metropolitan cities. The informant submitted that the O.P. No.1 holds a dominant position since the vehicle in question was distinguishable from other similar vehicles as it was the only monocoque vehicle available in India (no separate chassis) and there was no other monocoque vehicle manufactured by any company within India. Therefore, the inform, t5iedt suitable action be taken under the provisions of the Act aaLt1st'9.P Mo 1'\for abusing its dominant ZI position
1
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale of a unique vehicle mode limited to metro cities amounts to abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the relevant market for dominance includes only monocoque vehicles or the broader four-wheeler sector.
Whether the complaint regarding delayed delivery constitutes a cognizable violation of the Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sanjeev Pandey
- respondent
Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd.
Coram
Member (G)
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court