COMPETITION ACT, 2002,

Sections 4 & 3

Prohibition of abuse of dominant position - Existence of various home loan providers in the relevant market - Competitive constraints - Whether opposite party abused its dominant position

'K' (informant) availed a home loan facility from IHFL (OP). 'K' filed information alleging that despite a drop in the market rate of interest by the RBI, IHFL was not willing to reduce the rate of interest, which was due to its dominant position, thereby, violating the provisions of section 4. Further, the loan agreement consisted of clauses, which had an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India, thus, OP had contravened the provisions of section 3(1) and 3(4). Held: There were large number of players like SBI, PNB, HDFC bank, DHFL etc., who were operating in the relevant market i.e., market for provisions of home loan in India, , which suggested that not only market was competitive but also that IHFL did not have ability to operate independently of competitive forces. In absence of dominance, issue of abuse of dominant position against IHFL did not survive. Further, 'K' did not suggest existence of any horizontal/vertical agreement as envisaged under section 3, involving IHFL, thus, no case of contravention of provisions of section 3 or section 4 was made out against IHFL.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the informant

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT