Kerala HC: Persons With Down Syndrome Get Protection and Guardianship under National Trust Act, 1999  ||  J&K&L HC: Contractual Staff Cannot Claim Payment Beyond Contract Period Without Proving Work  ||  J&K&L HC: Revisional Powers U/S 15 Must be Exercised in Reasonable Time, Not After 20-Year Delay  ||  MP High Court: Revoking Building Permission Without Fraud Proof Violates Right to Property  ||  Madras HC: Centre’s Consent For Remission is Needed only When Sentence under Central Act is Ongoing  ||  Delhi HC: Private School Employees Entitled to Child Care Leave Equivalent to Government Employees  ||  Supreme Court Has Released Draft Regulations on AI Use in the Judiciary and Invited Public Feedback  ||  Supreme Court: MMDR Act Royalty Hikes Prevail over Contractual Terms  ||  Delhi HC: Daughter-In-Law Has No Independent Right in Mother-In-Law’s Self-Acquired House  ||  SC: Prolonged Separation Can Constitute Cruelty and Desertion    

Airline Operators Committee v. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. - (Competition Commission of India) (17 Nov 2015)

DIAL’s hundred per cent fee increase not an abuse of dominant position

MANU/CO/0102/2015

MRTP/ Competition Laws

Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. was given reprieve from proceedings for unfair and discriminatory increases in airport floor rental charges. DIAL, a company operating and managing the Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi, was alleged to have increased office space rental used by some airlines by up to 100 per cent, and having done so in a manner discriminating between airlines. The Commission noted that the agreement between airlines and the concessionaire did not stipulate only a nominal 7.5 per cent yearly increase in rent. Further, DIAL’s actions have brought the License Fee per square meter of terminal space for all airlines to the same amount.

Relevant : Section 4 Competition Act, 2002 Act

Tags : COMPETITION   AIRPORT FEE   EQUILIBRIUM   DOMINANT POSITION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved