Pramod Mahajan v. Icici Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined an informality alleging ICICI Bank abused its dominant position and engaged in cartelisation regarding unilateral home loan interest rate changes. Finding no dominance due to competitive market conditions and no evidence of collusion, the Commission dismissed the case under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC analogies.
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. 52 of 2020
In Re:
Pramod Mahajan 10/37, Punjabi Bagh New Delhi- 110026 Informant
And
ICICI Bank ICICI HFC Tower Andheri Kurla Road Andheri East Mumbai- 400059 Opposite Party
CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson
Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
- The present Information has been filed by Shri Pramod Mahajan ( ‘Informant’ ) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ( ‘Act’ ) against ICICI Bank (‘Opposite Party’/ ‘OP’) alleging violation of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
- The Informant has stated that he alongwith his wife had availed a Home Equity Loan Facility from the OP for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- and mortgaged his Property at 10/37, Ground floor, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi110091 by way of equitable mortgage with the OP. As per the loan document handed over to him, the said loan facility availed by him was
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent bank enjoyed a dominant position in the market for provision of home loans in India, making the alleged unilateral interest rate changes a contravention of Section 4.
Whether there was evidence of collusion among banks to include one-sided clauses in loan agreements, constituting cartelisation under Section 3.
Whether a prima facie case exists under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting further proceedings.
Coram
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Sangeeta Verma
Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · January
- Case no.
- 52/2020
- Topic
- Consumer Protection
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court