8 Landmark

Case Laws
on
COMPETITION LAW
SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN
 01.
CCI 2014

v.
State of Mizoram

CCI investigated the alleged cartelization and bid

rigging by bidders for the Mizoram state lotteries.
Sate government challenged the CCI’s jurisdiction
and imposed high financial conditions on the
bidders.
Supreme Court upheld the CCI’s authority and stayed
its final orders till the appeal process was over.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 02.
Google Inc. & Ors 2017

v.
CCI

Google appealed against the CCI’s order that fined it

for abusing its dominance under contravention of
Section 4 of the Competition Act in the online search
market and blocking competitors.
NCLAT upheld the CCI’s order and penalty of Rs.
1337.76 Crores on Google.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 03.
Mohit Manglani 2020

v.
Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd

CCI dismissed a complaint against Flipkart, Amazon,

and other e-commerce players for making exclusive
deals with sellers and manufacturers.
CCI further said that such deals do not harm
competition or create entry barriers for new players.
“Online platforms benefit consumers by offering them choice,
convenience, and comparison.”

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 04.
Together We Fight Society 2021

v.
Apple Inc.
CCI ordered a probe into Apple’s alleged abuse of its
dominance in the App store and in-app payment
markets for iOS devices.
CCI said, Apple restricts app developers & consumers
by forcing them to use its own App Store and In-App
Purchase (IAP) system, which charges a 30% fee.
Also, Apple prevents app developers from using
alternative payment methods or app distribution
channels.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 05.
Rohit Arora 2022

v.
Zomato

Zomato, an online food delivery app, was cleared by

the CCI of abusing its dominance and being unfair to
its customers and restaurants.
CCI said that the complainant’s allegations were
baseless and that Zomato had given valid reasons
and proof for its actions. CCI also said that Zomato
had many competitors and that customers had the
freedom to choose other apps.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 06.
JSW Paints 2019

v.
Asian Paints

CCI dismissed a complaint against Asian Paints, for

allegedly abusing its dominance and forcing dealers
to stop selling JSW Paints.
CCI said Asian Paints did not abuse its dominance..
The complaint against it for stopping dealers from
selling JSW Paints was dismissed. The complainant
lacked convincing evidence and the exclusive supply
agreement was not a violation.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 07.
XYZ (Confidential) 2015

v.
Alphabet Inc

CCI slapped a huge fine of Rs. 936.44 crores on

Google for abusing its dominance in the app store
and in-app payment markets for Android devices.
Google has forced the App developers and payment
aggregators to use its GPBS and UPI app. Google also
harmed competition, consumer choice and welfare.
CCI ordered Google to stop and pay within 60 days.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 08.
Thupili Raveendra Babu 2021

v.
CCI
The case is about a petitioner who wanted to study
law after retirement but was barred by the age limit
imposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). He
challenged the BCI’s rule as an abuse of dominance
under the Competition Act, 2002.
CCI, the NCLAT and the Supreme Court all dismissed
his complaint, holding that the BCI was not an
enterprise and had the statutory authority to regulate
legal education.

SWIPE TO LEARN MORE @LEGALBITES.IN

 More than 10,000+ aspirants have already
subscribed for Legal Bites Law Library

SUBSCRIBE NOW
WWW.LEGALBITES.IN/MEMBERSHIP

@LEGALBITES.IN SIMPLIFYING LEGAL EDUCATION

DM or WhatsApp for more details

WWW.LEGALBITES.IN
+91-7836070747