Shiju R v. Sunil Kumar v
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined an application alleging deceptive advertisements and abuse of dominant position. The Commission held that mere advertisement publication is not a Section 3 agreement and the respondent lacked a dominant market position, dismissing the application.
What did the court decide?
Application closed under Section 26(2) due to lack of agreement and non-existence of dominant position.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 27 of 2018
In Re:
Shiju R TC 25/2084 (5) Dharmalayam Road Ayurveda College Junction Thiruvananthapuram 1 Kerala Informant
And
Sunil Kumar V S/o- Vishwanathan Nair Sree Vihar, TC 25/2854 Near Uppidammodu Bridge Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Opposite Party CORAM
Mr. Sudhir Mital Chairperson Mr. Augustine Peter Member
Mr. U.C.Nahta Member
Order under Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002
- The present information has been filed by Mr. Shiju R., proprietor of a coaching institute named Aspirant (hereinafter the Informant ) under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the Act ) against Mr.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether publication of advertisements by an enterprise constitutes an anti-competitive agreement under Section 3 of the Act.
Whether the respondent enterprise enjoys a dominant position in the market violating Section 4 of the Act.
Whether the allegations raise any competition concerns warranting Commission intervention.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shiju R.
- respondent
Sunil Kumar V.
Coram
Sudhir Mital
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court