Dominant Position :Competition Law(Competition Act,2002)

ASSIGNMENT

ON

DOMINANT POSITION : DEFINITION,ABUSE OF DOMINANTPOSITION,DOMINANT FACTORS IN RELEVANT MARKET AND CASE

STUDY

SUBJECT

COMPETITION LAW(BL6-903)

SUBMITTED BY

BIBHU KAIBALYAMANIKROLL NO: 1685005/2016, LL.M

KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBMITTED TOKUMUDMALVIYA

Assistant Professor, School of Law

KIIT University

DOMINANT POSITION

1

CONTENT

1. CHAPTER - I---------------------------------------------------------------------3-5

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

1.3 HYPOTHESIS

1.4 RESEARCH PROBLEM

1.5 METHODOLOGY

1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW

2. CHAPTER - II---------------------------------------------------------------------6-7

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO DOMINANT POSITION

2.2 HOW DOMINANT POSITION CAN BE OBTAINED

3. CHAPTER - III-------------------------------------------------------------------8-10

3.1 ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION

3.2 RELEVANT MARKET

3.3 RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKET

3.4 RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKET

4. CHAPTER - IV-------------------------------------------------------------------11-13

4.1 DOMINACE FACTOR IN THE RELEVANT MARKET

4.1.1 SECTION 19(4) OF COMPETITION ACT,2002

DOMINANT POSITION

2

5. CHAPTER - V---------------------------------------------------------------------14-18

5.1 ANALYSIS OF CASES REGARDNG DOMINANT POSITION

5.1.1 Belaire Owners’ Association Vs. DLF Limited, HUDA & Ors.

5.1.2 M/S Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited V/S M/S Ani Technology Private Limited

5.1.3 Anti-competitive Practices of Google

5.1.4 Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited (MTSPL) v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

6. CHAPTER - VI------------------------------------------------------------------------19

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY--------------------------------------------------------------------20

DOMINANT POSITION

3

CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

Dominant position as being created when one or more undertakings in a particular market use

their position in that market to determine economic parameters such as price, supply, the amount

of production and distribution, by acting independently of their competitors and customers. A

firm is in a dominant position if it has the ability to behave independently of its competitors,

customers, suppliers and, ultimately, the final consumer.The competition laws of the countries

focuses on all activities be it multilateral activity or unilateral activity i.e. abuse of dominant

position in the market. The extent of dominance can be defined as the position of strength

enjoyed by an undertaking that enables it to operate independently of the competitive pressure in

the relevant market and also affects the relevant market, competitors and consumers by its action.

The impact on the market including barriers to new entrants is to be taken into account.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

To understand the meaning of Dominant position in the market.

To explore the legal provisions established for prohibition of Abuse of dominant position.

To overview the cases filed before Competition Commission of India regarding the abuse of

Dominant position in India.

HYPOTHESIS

It may be hypothesized that the Indian framework for Competition Law prohibits the abuse of

Dominant Position to maintain competitiveness in the market for every kind of market players.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The title of the act that is Competition Act,2002 gives an impression as if the act is a

comprehensive code of law relating to Competition .However,this is seeming impression does

seem to be true .The Competition act is partly got succeed by in preventing abuse of Dominant

DOMINANT POSITION

4

Position but due to lack of awareness and efficiency the dispute resolve mechanism is

functioning in less effective way. .

METHODOLOGY

The research paper presents the various aspects of dominant position and how the legal

framework is made to prevent abuse of dominant position in the market . The methodological

approach used in the research paper is doctrinal and case study method.The data used in the

research is collected from both primary,secondary and tertiary sources to make analysis and to

approve or disapprove the hypothesis.The primary sources of data used are court

decisions,Acts,statutes. Secondary sources of data used are relevant Articles and books of

law.The tertiary data used are relevant information regarding dominant position available from

internet sources.The hypothesis is tested through doctrinal method and case studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In “Abuse Of Dominant Position1”by “Shilpi”exlpained that Dominance relates to a position of

economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition

being maintained on relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent

independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers. Dominance means

acquisition of significant market power, which enables the enterprise to increase the price or

limit production independently of competitors as well as customers. Dominant position has to be

determined in the relevant market and the factors for such determination are provided in the Act.

Dominance is not treated bad per se; it is the abuse of dominant position which is prohibited.The

anti –competitive business practices in which a dominant firm may engage in order to maintain

or increase its position on the market. Competition law prohibits such behaviour, as it damages

true competitions between firms, exploits consumers and makes it unnecessary for the dominant

undertaking to compete with the other firms on the merits.The Article mostly delas with the

critical analysis of Domiant Position and abuse of it and role of domianat position in relevant

market rather than legal framework .

1 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/abuse-o-dominant-position-729-1.html

DOMINANT POSITION

5

In “Assessment Of Dominance : Issues And Challenges Under The Indian Competition Act,

20022”by “Mr. G.r. Bhatia” Determination of dominance of an enterprise or group in the

relevant market is a pre requisite to enquire into abuse thereof. India, in line with international

trend, has bid farewell to the arithmetical criteria of 25 per cent market share (as it exists in the

MRTP Act, 1969) to label an undertaking as "dominant" and has opted for combined structural

cum behavioural approach as the Competition Act, 2002 mandates the CCI to look into host of

factors which give rise to enormous issues and challenges in deciding "dominance". Further,

erroneous determination will discourage firms from pursuing pro competitive conducts while

erroneous non determination of dominance will allow the enterprise to perpetuate with

exploitative and exclusionary conducts. The need is to strike a balance to avoid both types of

error.The article mostly deals with the legal frame work for Domianat Position and law provided

in the Competition act,2002 and MRTP act,1969.

2 http://www.manupatrafast .com/ articles / PopOpenArticle .aspx?ID =8de19f8a - 5bbd-42b6- a96a- 692a0f376625&txtsearch = Subject:%20Commercial

DOMINANT POSITION

6

CHAPTER-II

INTRODUCTION TO DOMINANT POSITION

Dominant position in Competition act,2002 is defined as “a position of strength, enjoyed by an

enterprise, in the relevant market, in India, which enables it to

(i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or

(ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.”3

The act deals with the abuse of Dominant position which is prohibited 4.The term Dominance in

the market is explained in various way.In United Brands Company and United Brands

Continental BV v Commission of the European Communities5 the European court defines

dominance as :

“A position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective

competition being maintained on the relevant market by affording it the power to behave to an

appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers”

The High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law in para 4.4.5 defines Dominance as

“position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market in India, which enables it

to:6

(i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or

(ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. “

3 Section 4,Explanation (a),Competition Act,2002

4 Section 4 of Competition Act,2002

5 Case 27/76,1978,Eur Lex Acess to European Union Law, (March 22.2017, 11:34 AM) , http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61976CJ0027

6www.manupatrafast.com,(March 22. 2017,11:55AM),http://www.manupatrafast.com/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=8de19f8a-5bbd-42b6-a96a692a0f376625&txtsearch=Subject:%20Commercial

DOMINANT POSITION

7

There are certain factors by which a Dominant position can be determined .Essentially a lack of

rivalry in the market s one of the reason.Competitive pressure from rival firms usually 'keeps

firms honest', preventing them from charging prices which are excessively above costs. Without

competitive pressure a dominant firm has market power and so is able to profitably raise prices

and restrict output.

How Dominant Position Can be obtained

A dominant position may, in part, be obtained through:

A firm gaining market share by being more efficient than competitors and better at product

and process innovations

A firm buying out or merging with competitors

A state owned enterprise

is positive and part of the competitive process. The lure of greater profits is an incentive to

innovate and increase market share

can be positive or negative which is why many jurisdictions regulate merger activity

So holding a dominant position is not outlawed (although it is controlled where

possible).Abusing a dominant position is outlawed.So Dominant position is ability to operate

independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market which affect its

competitor/consumers/relevant market

DOMINANT POSITION

8

CHAPTER-III

ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION

The concept of abuse is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a

dominant position which is such as to influence the structure of a market where , as a result of

the very presence of the undertaking in question.The degree of competition is weakened and

which , through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in

products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators , has the effect of

hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth

of that competition.

The philosophy of the Competition Act is that a situation of monopoly per se is not against

public policy but, rather, the use of the monopoly status such that it operates to the detriment of

potential and actual competitors. At this point it is worth mentioning that the Competition Act

does not prohibit or restrict enterprises from coming into dominance. There is no control

whatsoever to prevent enterprises from coming into or acquiring position of dominance. All that

the Act prohibits is the abuse of that dominant position. The Act therefore targets the abuse of

dominance and not dominance per se .

For instance in EU laws in N.V. Netherlands Banden Industrie Michelin vs Commission of

the European Communities7 it is observed that a finding that an undertaking has a dominant

position is not a recrimination but simply means that irrespective of the reasons for which it has

such a dominant position, the undertaking concerned has a special responsibility not to allow its

conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition in the common market. In United States vs.

International Harvester Co.8 the court citing the case of United States vs. United States steel

Corp9 observed that law does not make mere size of corporation, however impressive, or the

7 Case 322/81,ECLI:EU:C:1983:313,http://www.legalservicesindia.com,(March 23.2017,12:14 PM) ,http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/abuse-o-dominant-position-729-1.html

8274 U.S. 693 (1927), supreme.justia.com,(March 23.2017, 12:34 P.M) ,https:// supreme.justia. com/ cases/federal/us/274/693/case.html

9251 U.S. 417 (1920),supreme.justia.com, (March 23.2017, 2:45 PM) https:// supreme. justia.com/ cases/federal/us/251/417/

DOMINANT POSITION

9

existence of unexterted power on its part, an offense when accompanied by unlawful conduct in

the exercise of its power. The laws of most jurisdictions prohibit the abuse of dominant

position/misuse of market power by enterprises.

Section 4 of Competition Act,2002 defines about the abuse of Dominant position which is

prohibited by law . As defined in such section :

There shall be no abuse of dominant position . It can be considered as dominant position if ,

Imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions

Predatory pricing, limit production, deny market access

Contracts contingent on supplementary obligation

Use dominance in one market to move into or protect other relevant market (product &

geography)

Limiting or restricitng

Production of goods

Technical or scientific development

Indulges in practical resulting in denial of market access

Makes conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by other parties of supplementary

obligations

Uses its dominant position in one relevant market to enter into,or protect other relevant

market.

Predatory Price - It means the sale of goods or provision of services, at a. price which is

below the cost, as may be determined by regulations, of production of the goods or provision

of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors.10

10 Section 4,Explanation (b) , Competition Act,2002

DOMINANT POSITION

10

Relevant Market - It means the market which may be determined by the Commission with

reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to

both the markets.11

Relevant Geographic Market- It means a market comprising the area in which the conditions

of competition for supply of goods or provision of services or demand of goods or services are

distinctly homogeneous and can be distinguished from the conditions prevailing in the

neighbouring areas12

Relevant Product Market- It means a market comprising all those products or services which

are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of characteristics of

the products or services, their prices and intended use.13

11 Section 2(r) of Competition Act,2002

12 Section 2(s) of Competition Act,2002

13 Section 2(t) pf Competition Act,2002

DOMINANT POSITION

11

CHAPTER-IV

DOMINANCE FACTORS IN THE RELEVANT MARKET

The Competition Commission of India shall, while inquiring whether an enterprise enjoys a

dominant position or not under section 4, have due regard to all or any of the following

factors14, namely

Market share of the enterprise- After determining the relevant market, the next step in

determining "dominance" is to assess market share of enterprise or group. Different

parameters are employed to measure market share depending upon the nature of sector and

the issue under investigation.

Size and resources of the enterprise- Large size and superior financial position or resources

may be a contributing factor to a dominant market position.

Size and importance of the competitors - When looking at market share it is also relevant to

look at the largest firm's market share relative to its competitors; the smaller the shares of the

competitors, it would be advisable to hold that the largest firm as dominant. Market share of

one competitor in the market also determine the competition constraint on the another player

Economic power of the enterprise including commercial advantages over competitors -

Superior market position or resources may be a contributing factor to a dominant market

position.

Vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or service network of such enterprises - The

vertical integration and the benefit of well-established distribution system may act as barrier

to entry as it can discourage or impede access for a potential entrant to the market

Dependence of consumers on the enterprise - In public utilities, the dependence of

consumers is invariably high.

Monopoly or dominant position whether acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue

of being a Government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise - A

14 Section 19(4) of Competition Act,2002

DOMINANT POSITION

12

former state monopoly later on facing competition from new entrants, may have inherited

advantages like a strong financial position, control of certain network facilities, connections

and political support or established relations with suppliers and customers and such

dominant firm may make life of new entrants difficult and may oust them out of market. The

imbalance between a former state monopolist and the new entrants have been noticed

globally

Entry barriers including barriers such as regulatory barriers, financial risk, high capital cost

of entry, marketing entry barriers, technical entry barriers, economies of scale, high cost

of substitutable goods or service for consumers;

Countervailing buying power - An enterprise may be constrained not only by actual and

potential competitors but also by its customers. A buyer enjoying monopsony can tame a

dominant supplier to exercise market power. If there are competitors with adequate

capacities to meet demand, a buyer's threat to switch to another supplier may have a

considerable disciplinary effect on a supplier that sells a major part of its production to a

single buyer. A strong buyer may pave the way for new entry or lead existing suppliers in

the market to expand their output so as to defeat the exercise of market power not only to its

own benefit but also to the benefit of other buyers and consumers.

Market structure and size of market - Market structure which is characterised by a sole

supplier of goods/services either on standalone basis or by virtue of common ownership,

makes conditions conducive to exercise market power affecting competition, consumers or

market.

Social obligations and social costs - This factor gives flexibility to Commission to take into

account social obligations performed by an entity. There is greater realisation more than ever

before that business house is trustee of society. The profit for profit's sake is becoming a

dirty word and focus of future business is on ethics, governance beside quest for

sustainability, conservation of energy etc

Relative advantage,by way of the contribution to the economic development, by the

enterprise enjoying a dominant position having or likely to have an appreciable adverse

effect on competition;

DOMINANT POSITION

13

Any other factor which the Commission may consider relevant for the inquiry - This

residuary clause gives ample scope to the Commission to take into account any other factor

which it may deem fit for the inquiry. Price and profit level are also used in some

jurisdictions as a relevant factor while assessing dominance but some jurisdiction caution

about potential error in using them as determining competitive price or profit is extremely

difficult and further exorbitant price or profit is viewed as inducement to others to enter into

the market. Access to essential inputs on long-term basis may be in favour of assessing

dominance.

DOMINANT POSITION

14

CHAPTER-V

ANALYSIS OF CASES REGARDING DOMINANT POSITION

Belaire Owners’ Association Vs. DLF Limited, HUDA & Ors.15

Facts of The Case

DLF has launched a Group Housing Complex (The Belaire) in Gurgaon, planned to construct 5

multistoried residential buildings. In its initial plan, DLF designed five multi-storied buildings

which would consist of only 19 floors with a total of 368 apartments to be constructed within a

period of 36 months. In May 2010, the informant filed an instant case under Section 19(1) (a) of

the Competition Act, 2002 and alleged that DLF, by abusing its dominant position, imposed

highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable conditions on the informant through its agreements. As

a matter of fact, the rights of the informant in this agreement were affected by the DLF. The

Informant .further alleged that the various clauses of the house agreement had imposed unilateral

and one sided clauses and the action of DLF pursuant thereto was prima facie unfair and

discriminatory, thus attracting the provisions of Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act.

Analysis by CCI and COMPAT

The commission analysis, as per the Section 4 (a) and Section 4 (a) (ii), DLF position of

dominance in the relevant market cannot be ignored as its advantages of over competitors in size

and resources, and concluded “DLF operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in

the relevant market or to affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.

DLF had a clear early mover's advantage and occupies a leadership position as real estate is a

sector with natural entry barriers due to high cost of land and brand value of incumbent market

leaders.

The CCI held that DLF has resorted to malpractice in the agreement and its acts of abuse of

dominance position can be clearly seen in this case. The abuse was alleged to be committed by

imposing

15 Case No. 19/2010,indiankanoon.org,(March 23.2017,6:54 PM)https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143869586/

DOMINANT POSITION

15

unfair conditions on the buyer through the Provisional Booking agreement, which is signed by

the buyer after having paid substantial costs, therefore, DLF leaving no option to the buyer to

object to loop-sided provisions of the agreement.

On this case, CCI held that DLF has contravened the section 4 (2) (a) (i) and (ii), directly and

indirectly, imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions in the sale of services. CCI found DLF

guilty of abusing its dominant position in the market and imposed a penalty of Rs. 630 crores on

DLF. The CCI further directed DLF to cease and desist from formulating and imposing such

unfair conditions in its Agreement with buyers in Gurgaon and to suitably modify unfair

conditions imposed on its buyers as referred to above, within 3 months of the date of receipt of

the order on DLF.

DLF Further Appealed in COMPAT for modification of agreement. The case is still pending.

M/S Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited V/S M/S Ani Technology Private Limited16

Brief Facts

1. M/s Fast Track Call Cab Pvt. Ltd., the “Informant”, filed a complaint against M/s ANI

Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the “Opposite Party”, alleging that the Opposite Party acted in

contravention of Section 3 (Anti-competitive agreements) and Section 4 (Abuse of

Dominant position) by engaging in the practice of predatory pricing.

2. The Informant claims on the basis of an article published on ‘vccircle.com’ that the opposite

party received investment worth of over $ 276 million from various companies and that this

amount is being utilised to unleash a series of abusive practices of unfair condition and

predatory pricing. The Opposite Party, as claimed by the Informant, enjoys a dominant

position as it has 43% of the active fleet in Bengaluru with 47% of the market share and has

acquired the business of ‘Taxi for Sure’, making its share about 69% in the relevant market.

3. Informant also states that the Opposite Party is abusing its dominant position by

incentivising its drivers in an unrealistic manner and also providing the customers with

16 Case No. 06 of 2015 ,CCI ,halphalegalupdates.blogspot.in,(March 23.2017, 7:18 PM) http:// alphalegalupdates.blogspot.in/2015/11/ms-fast-track-call-cab-private-limited.html

DOMINANT POSITION

16

equally unrealistic discounts with the help of the money received by the foreign investments.

It is difficult for the other existing radio cab operators to match the standards of the Opposite

Party.

Issue for Consideration

Whether the Opposite Party has abused its dominant position in as given under Section 4 of

the Competition Act, 2002 by indulging in the malpractice of predatory pricing?

Decision of the Commission

1. The Commission established ‘Radio taxi services’ as the relevant market. It held that

geographic market will be different for each city as the operations of cabs is restricted to city

limits; in this case Bengaluru. Thus, the relevant market was established as ‘Radio Taxi

services in the city of Bengaluru’.

2. The Commission was also of the opinion that Opposite Party enjoyed a dominant position in

the relevant market owing to the acquisition of another service provider, Taxi for Sure, due

to which its market share in the relevant market went up to 69%.

3. On the issue of the Opposite Party offering unrealistic incentives to its drivers, the

Commission was of the opinion that it is not concerned with the exclusion of other players

from the market on the grounds of inefficiency. However the abusive practice of predatory

pricing was taken up as under Section 4(2) of the Competition Act.

4. On the basis of the material placed on record, on an average, the Opposite Party spent

around Rs. 574 per trip but the average revenue was Rs. 344, creating a loss of Rs. 230 on an

average. Thus, the Commission was of the opinion that this indicated predatory pricing

aiming to eliminate other competitors from the relevant market.

5. The conduct of the Opposite Party, according to the Competition Commission of India,

resulted in abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the above mentioned Act.

6. The Commission ordered an investigation as per Section 26(1) of the Competition Act for

fixing liability with respect to the contravention of the said Act.On 6th August, 2015, the

Chairman of the CCI started that the investigation in this matter is at the preliminary stage.

DOMINANT POSITION

17

7. The Case is still pending .

Anti-competitive Practices of Google17

An investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has claimed that the US-based

Internet giant Google Inc allegedly “abused its dominance” in the Indian market by incorporating

clauses in its agreements with users that restricted them from availing services of third-party

search engines.The probe by the DG (Director General, Investigations), ordered by the CCI in

2012, also found that some agreements the company had with other parties incorporated a “one-

sided clause relating to termination, possible for only those players who are dominant”. The

competition watchdog has sent its findings to Google and asked for its response by September

10,2012.If found guilty, CCI an impose a penalty of up to 10 per cent of the company’s three-

year annual average turnover, as per the Competition Act.CCI imposed a fine of Rs 1 crore on

Google for non-cooperation in the investigation.CCI ordered an investigation after CUTS, a

consumer rights website, in 2011, and BharatMatrimony.com, a matchmaking portal, in 2012,

filed complaints with the commission against the alleged abuse of dominance by Google. The

matchmaking portal alleged that the company had discriminatory and retaliatory trade practices

related to its AdWords program, which is Google’s key revenue source where it sells keywords

to advertisers and displays them in the form of ads online. During the probe, DG CCI sought

comments from several third parties including Flipkart, MakeMyTrip.com, and Facebook.

Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited (MTSPL) v. Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.18

In this case, Meru's averment against Uber was its dominance in the relevant market in so far as

its incentive policy is not based upon any economically justified consideration, but solely to gain

and maintain the fidelity of the taxi owners and to prevent passengers/customers from obtaining

radio taxi services from other radio taxi services operators.Further, Meru alleged that Uber's

loyalty inducing incentive schemes have or are likely to have an exclusionary effect in the

relevant market to the detriment of other competitors.In addition to the payments to drivers, Uber

17 indianexpress.com,(March 23.2017, 9:10 PM),http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/google-misusing-search-dominance-in-india-says-dg-report-to-cci/

18 Case No. 96 of 2015 ,CCI,www.mondaq.com,(March 23.2017,10:14 P.M) http:// www.mondaq.com /india/x/561928/Cartels+Monopolies/Indian+Antitrust+Scenario+Year+In+Review+2016

DOMINANT POSITION

18

is said to be offering huge discounts and benefits to its consumers which are difficult for

similarly placed players to match.However, on 7 December 2016, the COMPAT reversed the

CCI's order and directed the DG to investigate the matter on the grounds that relevant market

was incorrectly defined by the CCI, in addition to fact that the size of discounts and incentives

offered by Uber suggest either phenomenal efficiency improvements replacing existing business

models with the new business models or the possibility of an anti-competitive stance to it. The

Commission is of the view that no case of contravention is made out against Uber Group under

Sections 3 or 4 of the Act. Accordingly, this case is hereby directed to be closed under Section

26(2) of the Act.

DOMINANT POSITION

19

CHAPTER-VI

CONCLUSION

Unhesitatingly, protecting consumers and ensuring freedom of businesses and to engage in

economic conduct free from abuse by dominant firms will contribute to economic development

but determining dominance of a firm or group is highly subjective and complex. It is more

challenging for a new agency of an emerging economy of India. There are no hard and fast rules

to determine dominance.Erroneous determination of dominance will discourage firms from

pursuing pro-competitive conducts. Erroneous non-determination of dominance will allow them

to perpetuate with exploitative and exclusionary conducts. Thus, CCI needs to strike a balance to

avoid both types of error. Though there are many cases which are dealt by CCI to prevent

dominant position yet many cases are pending . The awareness in the market regarding dominant

position is not fully developed. Competition act achieved its objective in some extent bu not

fully .Still Small Market players are becoming victimized by Dominant market players.Though

CCI set examples in the competitive market by resolving certain issues yet the procedure is time

consuming . The faster resolve of issues will be more effective.

DOMINANT POSITION

20

BIBLIOGRPHY

ACTS

Competion Act,2002

Internet Sources

www.cci.gov.in/

www.legalservicesindia.com

www.manupatrafast.com

www.mondaq.com

corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com

spicyip.com

indianexpress.com

halphalegalupdates.blogspot.in

supreme.justia. Com

eur-lex.europa.eu

indiankanoon.org