Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 12 FEBRUARY 2016

End Of Bumpy Ride For Uber? CCI Smoothens The Road

Nishith Desai Associates
Explore more from Nishith Desai Associates

The Competition Commission of India ("Commission") in In Re: Meru Travel Solutions (Private) Ltd v Uber India Systems (Private) Ltd. ("Uber Order") held that Uber India did not hold a dominant position...

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Mithun Verghis
Mithun Verghis
M.S. Ananth
M.S. Ananth
Pratibha Jain
Pratibha Jain
Author LinkedIn connections
  • CCI holds that Uber does not hold a dominant position in Kolkata and dismisses claim filed by Meru Cabs
  • CCI holds Kolkata's market to be a peculiar market and hence relevant product market would include services offered by radio taxis as well as yellow taxis.
  • CCI holds that the relevant geographic market, for services that were regulated by an authority would be the territory over which such authority exercised its powers.

Background

The Competition Commission of India ("Commission") in In Re: Meru Travel Solutions (Private) Ltd v Uber India Systems (Private) Ltd.1 ("Uber Order") held that Uber India did not hold a dominant position within the city of Kolkata and therefore no case could be made out for directing an investigation by the Director General for abuse of dominant position.

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

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