The Competition Commission of India was unable to rule that Emaar abused its dominance, despite finding that agreements it entered into with Silapuri Colonizers were anti-competitive. The antitrust watchdog did not find any evidence that supported Emaar had abused its dominance.
The case was brought by Silapuri, who claimed that Emaar used unfair tactics and misrepresentations in the agreements over pricing, location, construction, and design specifications for the Palm Drive real estate project in Gurgaon. Silapuri paid Rs 9 crore for construction, which was delayed.
Full content: The Hindu Business Line
Related content: India’s New Antitrust Regime (Aditya Bhattacharjea, University of Delhi)
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
FTC Throws the Bag: Tapestry’s Capri Deal Blocked Over Market Monopoly Concerns
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Antitrust Authority Investigates Enel’s Communication of Energy Price Hikes
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
UK Data Regulator Uncovers Flaws in Google’s Privacy Sandbox Proposal
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Body Orders Google to Amend Ad Search Practices
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Senator Blackburn Blasts Ticketmaster Amid DOJ Probe
Apr 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI