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
Trump Nominates Olivia Trusty for FCC Commissioner Role Ahead of Inauguration
Jan 16, 2025 by
CPI
Lawyers Claim eXp’s Settlement Tactics Hurt Antitrust Case Potential
Jan 16, 2025 by
CPI
Amex GBT Pushes Back Against DOJ Lawsuit Over CWT Acquisition
Jan 16, 2025 by
CPI
Belgium Opens Antitrust Probe into AB InBev’s Market Practices
Jan 16, 2025 by
CPI
Tech Groups Sue CFPB Over New Rule on Digital Wallet Oversight
Jan 16, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand