Kshitij Srivastava And M/s Arthur Flury India Private Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined allegations of abuse of dominant position by an entity holding a monopoly in Short Neutral Section Assemblies for Indian Railways due to policy restrictions. The Commission analyzed price trends and market dynamics, finding no prima facie case of contravention.
What did the court decide?
The information filed by the Informant was directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 40 of 2025
In Re:
Kshitij Srivastava Informant
M/s Arthur Flury India Private Limited Opposite Party
CORAM
Ravneet Kaur Chairperson
Anil Agrawal Member
Sweta Kakkad Member
Deepak Anurag Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
- The Information has been filed by Shri Kshitij Srivastava (‘ Informant ’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘ the Act ’) against M/s Arthur Flury India Private Limited (‘ Opposite Party ’/ ‘ OP ’) alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Act in the supply of Short Neutral Section Assemblies (‘ SNSA ’).
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made a prima facie case of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding price fixation and discriminatory practices.
Whether the information filed warrants the initiation of an inquiry under the Act.
Whether the alleged price differences between Indian Railways and EPC contractors constitute abuse of dominance.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Kshitij Srivastava
Coram
Ravneet Kaur
Anil Agrawal
Sweta Kakkad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court