Xyz v. Sanofi India Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission of India dismissed the informant's complaint against Sanofi India Limited. Finding the respondent not dominant with less than 2% market share, the Commission held no violation of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act and closed the case.
What did the court decide?
The case was ordered to be closed forthwith as no case was made out against the opposite party under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 80 of 2016
In Re XYZ Informant
And Sanofi India Limited , Sanofi House, CTS No. 117-B, L&T Business Park, Saki Vihar Road, Powai Mumbai-400072 Opposite Party CORAM Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson Mr. Sudhir Mital Member Mr. Augustine Peter Member Mr. U. C. Nahta Member Appearance: For Informant : Mr. Harish Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Opposite : Ms. Sonam Mathur, Advocate Party Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhijit Yadav, Legal Head of Opposite Party
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
- The present information has been filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the ‘ Act ’) by XYZ (hereinafter, ‘Informant’ ) against Sanofi India Limited, (hereinafter, the ‘ OP’ ), alleging, inter alia, contravention of provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of the Act.
Case No. 80 of 2016 Page 1 of 7
- The Informant has sought confidentiality of his identity and, inter alia , prayed before the Commission to initiate the enquiry.
- On 17th November, 2016, the Commission considered the matter and granted confidentiality to the identity of the Informant. Due to confidentiality of identity of the Informant, the Commission decided to send a brief summary of the allegations to the OP instead of complete information. The following are the allegations in brief:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the third-party due diligence (TPDD) process adopted by the respondent constitutes an agreement causing appreciable adverse effect on competition under Section 3 of the Act.
Whether the respondent is a dominant entity abusing its dominance by refusing to supply drugs to the complainant under Section 4 of the Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
XYZ Informant
- respondent
Sanofi India Limited
Coram
Devender Kumar Sikri
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court