Shri Amitabh v. M/s Kent Ro Systems
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission disposed of an information filed by Shri Amitabh against M/s KENT RO Systems alleging abuse of dominance in the aftermarket for spare parts and services under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Distincting the facts from a prior automobile case (_Shri Samsher Kataria_), the bench held that the Informant failed to provide prima facie evidence of exorbitant pricing or
What did the court decide?
Information ordered to be closed forthwith.
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. 100 of 2014
In Re:
Shri Amitabh Informant
And
M/s KENT RO Systems
Opposite Party
CORAM Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson
Mr. S. L. Bunker Member
Mr. Sudhir Mital Member Mr. Augustine Peter Member
Mr. U. C. Nahta Member
Appearances: None for the Informant.
Order under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged exclusive dealing and pricing practices regarding RO water purifier spare parts constitute a contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the Informant was entitled to fair consideration for the references made to the Honda Siel decision in support of the allegations.
Whether prima facie evidence exists to establish abuse of dominance in the aftermarket for spare parts and services.
Coram
Ashok Chawla
S. L. Bunker
Sudhir Mital
Augustine Peter
U. C. Nahta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court