P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved