NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved