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    

Meru Travel Solutions Private Limited and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. - (Competition Commission of India) (22 Dec 2015)

CCI dismisses Meru’s ‘dominant position’ complaint against Uber

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India rejected Meru Travel Solutions’ (owner of Meru Cabs) complaint against Uber for holding a dominant position in the radio taxi market in Kolkata. The Commission determined that Uber did not have a dominant position in the relevant market, which included radio-taxi’s and local yellow taxis, and rejected market reports adduced on behalf of Meru claiming Uber’s majority share for lacking veracity. In its complaint Meru had alleged Uber to have undertaken predatory strategies that excluded companies from the radio-taxi market, allowing it to operate independent of competition. Meru’s allegations were predicated on Uber’s “unabated predatory pricing” and business model which forewent profits in favour of poaching drivers from other operators.

Tags : RADIO TAXI   DOMINANT POSITION   KOLKATA   MERU   UBER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved