Law: Competition Act, 2010

Section: 2(1)(2),3(3)(a),30,37

Law: Competition Act, 2010

Section: 2(1)(2),3(3)(a),30,37

Competition Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 2(1)(2), 3(3)(a), 30 & 37---Dominant position, abuse of---Enquiry Committee, duly constituted, submitted its enquiry report, wherein it was stated that company held a substantial market share, and enjoyed economic power in the 1300cc segment of car market; which enabled it to behave independent of its competitors and customers; thereby making it a dominant player in the relevant market of cars---Under the circumstances buyer of the company's product, was in a weaker bargaining position---"Provisional Booking order" issued by the company to its potential buyers, had given the company the sole right to (i) change the price; (ii) design/specification; (iii) delivery schedule without any notice to the buyer; (iv) a conclusive right to interpret the terms of the contract; and (iv) to decide the dispute between a buyer and the company---Such terms created a significant imbalance to the disadvantage of buyer's rights and obligations arising under the contract---Such terms of "Provisional Booking order" being unfair to the buyers, were in contravention of S.3(3)(a) of Competition Act, 2010---Subsequently, the company revised and rectified the draft of "Provisional Booking order"; and such rectification, had put the consumer at equal footing---Initially company had sole and absolute discretion to accept or reject the request of cancellation by the employer; and company had sole right to alter some or all terms and conditions of "Provisional Booking order", and also the right to interpret them conclusively---Such clause in the contract could be used to force the buyer to accept increased cost, or reduced benefits, which was unfair---Such clause had been completely removed from the revised draft of Provisional Booking order---Other condition, whereby any dispute between the customer and the company was to be conclusively decided by the Managing Director of the company, had been amended to refer such dispute to an arbitrator to solve and settle the matter under the Arbitration Act, 1940, giving fair and equal right to both parties i.e. the buyer and the company---Initially the company held sole right to change the design,…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492