Shri Jitendra M. Malkan v. M/s Godrej Properties Ltd. & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined allegations of cartelization among five major domestic airlines regarding alleged market share stability and price parallelism. After detailed supplementary investigations into software algorithms, fare buckets, and cost structures, the Commission found no evidence of communication or concerted action, concluding that observed similarities were due to market for
What did the court decide?
The matter is ordered to be closed forthwith under Section 26(6) of the Act as no contravention is made out.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2015
In Re: Alleged Cartelization in the Airlines Industry
CORAM
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson
Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member
Order under Section 26(6) of the Competition Act, 2002
Facts:
- The present case pertains to alleged cartelization amongst various domestic airlines operating in India in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”) read with Section 3 (3) thereof. By way of background, it is noted that the case emanated upon receipt of a letter dated 31.01.2014 from Lok Sabha Secretariat with a request to examine whether there is any evidence of cartelization in the airlines sector.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the observed price parallelism and stable market shares among domestic airlines indicated an agreement or understanding in contravention of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Competiti
Whether dynamic pricing mechanisms and algorithmic configurations constituted a concerted action or cartel amongst the airlines.
Whether the investigation report establishing lack of communication and independent decision-making warrants closure of the suo motu case.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Competition Commission of India
Coram
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Sangeeta Verma
Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1
- Order 2 — this page
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court