P&H High Court: Re-Investigation Cannot Nullify Existing Acquittal Despite Breach of Stay Order  ||  Gujarat HC: Illegal Mining Vehicle Complaints Must Be Filed Before Sessions Court, Not Magistrate  ||  Delhi High Court Lays Down Registry Directions for Dealing with Insufficiently Stamped Arbitral Award  ||  Delhi High Court: Victims Need No Leave to Appeal Acquittal or Conviction for Lesser Offence  ||  SC: Limitation Act Inapplicable to Revisions under Karnataka Land Revenue Act  ||  SC: Banks Can Invoke SARFAESI for Loans Acquired from NBFCs Outside the Act  ||  SC: Gujarat Prohibition Act Does not Bar Interim Seized Vehicle Release  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rs. 425-Crore Customs Penalty Based on AI-Generated Fake Case Laws  ||  SC: Guilt cannot be Presumed Solely Due to Collusion Allegations against Investigating Officer  ||  SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings    

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