Balbir Singh Nagpal And Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited & Other
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission rejected an application under Section 19(1) regarding alleged anti-competitive practices by Toyota and an authorized dealer. The Commission held the issues were inter se disputes contingent on market factors like supply shortages, finding no prima facie case of abuse or RPM to warrant investigation under Section 26(1), and directed closure.
What did the court decide?
Commission directed that the matter be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act and no case arises for grant of interim relief under Section 33.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 04 of 2024
In Re: Balbir Singh Nagpal 2110, Tower-E, Prateek Edifice, Sector 107, Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar 201301, Uttar Pradesh
Informant
And Toyota Kirloskar Motors Private Limited Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial-Area, Ramanagara Taluk, Bangalore, District- Karnataka - 562109
Opposite Party No.1
Uttam Toyota (A division of the Standard Type Foundry Private Limited) H-3 Block Sector 63, Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar 201301, Uttar Pradesh
Opposite Party No.2
CORAM
Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal Member
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Informant's complaints regarding arbitrary delivery delays, premium demands by DSAs, and resale price maintenance reveal a prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
Whether there is sufficient evidence of an agreement causing appreciable adverse effect on competition in relation to RPM.
Whether the allegations amount to abuse of dominant position requiring investigation.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Balbir Singh Nagpal
Coram
Ravneet Kaur
Anil Agrawal
Sweta Kakkad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · July
- Case no.
- 04/2024
- Topic
- Consumer Protection
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court