Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 JULY 2021

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

CCI Dismisses Unfair Business Practices Complaint Against Uber

Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Contributor
Khaitan & Co.

Khaitan & Co.

Founded in 1911, Khaitan & Co is a heritage law firm that has been a trusted adviser to leading...

View firm profile
Explore more from Khaitan & Co.

On 14 July 2021, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed a claim of charging prices below-cost and entering exclusive agreements with drivers against Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Uber).

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Pranjal Prateek
Pranjal Prateek
Swati Bala
Swati Bala
Siddharth Bagul
Siddharth Bagul
Yatharth V. Singh
Yatharth V. Singh
Author LinkedIn connections

On 14 July 2021, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed a claim of charging prices below-cost and entering exclusive agreements with drivers against Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. (Uber).1

Facts

In 2015, Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Meru) had alleged Uber to be a dominant player in the market for radio taxi services in Delhi-NCR due to: (i) its size and resources, (ii) economic power vis-à-vis its competitors, and (iii) growing dependence of customers. It alleged that Uber abused this position by offering unreasonable discounts to the customers leading to predatory prices to oust its competitors, thereby violating Section 4(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views / position of Khaitan & Co but remain solely those of the author(s). For any further queries or follow up, please contact Khaitan & Co at [email protected].

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

An Update On India’s Proposed Digital Competition Law

India’s proposed Digital Competition Law has evolved through several stages, from the 2022 Parliamentary Committee report and the 2024 Committee on Digital Competition Law’s draft Bill, through a 2025 government reconsideration, to renewed Parliamentary backing for an ex-ante framework in August 2026. Drawing on comparative experience from the EU, UK, and Japan, this article argues that legislative reform must be matched by a strengthened Competition Commission of India if ex-ante regulation is to work in practice.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Article

Competition Law Updates August 2026

On 13 July 2026, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed penalties exceeding ₹142 crore on HP India and several reselers under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) for cartelisation and bid rigging in the sale and supply of HP personal system products, including laptops, desktops, workstations and accessories (Computers Case), and ink and toner cartridges (Cartridges Case). The orders arose from lesser penalty applications filed by HP India under Section 46 of the Competition Act read with the CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

Sectoral Regulatory Laws And The Competition Commission Of India: Revisiting The Interface After The Amendment Act Of 2023

India has two regulatory layers- sector regulators since the 1990s and the CCI, which alone handles competition matters since 2002, and this has created real gaps and clashes, as seen in telecom, electricity, aviation, and conflicting court rulings. The article argues this isn’t a genuine conflict but a design flaw as the CCI is best placed to judge competition consistently, while sectoral regulators bring technical expertise the CCI lacks. This gap was flagged back in 2011 in a policy draft that was never implemented. The article proposes practical fixes, mandatory coordination, sunset clauses for outdated rules, and a revived regulator forum.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Article

Ministry Of Labour And Employment Operationalises The Provisions On Payment Of Statutory Bonus

On 25 August 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued two notifications (Notifications) under the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code), thereby operationalising specified provisions relating to payment of statutory bonus for establishments for which the appropriate government is the Central Government. The Wage Code consolidates the legislative framework governing wages and related employee entitlements, including the regime previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
IndiaEmployment and HR
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of SARFAESI Remedies For A Secured Creditor Who Acquires An NPA From A Non-notified NBFC

In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Trupti Sanjay Mehta and Others, 2026 INSC 943 (Kotak Mahindra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered whether a bank as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) could invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover a secured debt acquired from an entity which was not covered under the ambit of the SARFAESI Act at the time of disbursement of the loan.
IndiaFinance and Banking
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

DOT Notifies Telecom Network Authorisation Rules, 2026: What Has Changed?

On 20 July 2026, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) notified the Telecommunications (Authorisation for Telecommunication Network) Rules, 2026 (Rules). The Rules operationalise Section 3(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and establish a framework for six categories of telecommunication network authorisations: infrastructure provider (IP) (formerly, IP-I), digital connectivity infrastructure provider (DCIP), internet exchange point (IXP) provider, satellite earth station gateway (SESG) provider, cloud-hosted telecommunication network (CTN) provider and mobile number portability (MNP) provider.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.