9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant market and BMW passenger cars did not occupy a significant market share. Merely because, the act of refusal on the part of OP-1 to renew dealership of Informant beyond 31st December, 2017 may have caused pecuniary loss to the Informant does not raise any competition concern, even if, the consequence of such termination of dealership has proved advantageous to the dealers of OP-1 in neighbouring states of Gujarat to sell BMW cars to customers hailing from Gujarat. As regards, fiscal loss to the State of Gujarat in the form of Taxes leviable on sale of cars suffice it to say that apart from the Informant having no locus to raise such issue the revenue resources available to the State would depend on the profitability of business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Section 4 of the Act filed by the Appellant (Informant before CCI) was ordered to be closed on the ground that the existing Dealership Agreement between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 stood expired by efflux of time on 31st December, 2017 due to non-renewal thereof and the Informant had not challenged any term of the aforesaid Dealership Agreement which has since expired. 2. For better appreciation of the grievance projected by the Informant a peep into the factual aspects and sequence of events is inevitable. The Informant - Parsoli Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. filed an information with CCI under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Act against BMW India Pvt. Ltd. and BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. respectively figuring as OP-1 and OP-2 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I found that BMW India has negligible share in passenger car segment in India which is dominated by its formidable competitors like Maruti , Hyundai , TATA , etc. who hold a significant market share. Thus, it concluded that BMW India cannot be said to be a dominant player, therefore, question of abuse of dominant position did not at all arise. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the Informant was a dealer for BMW vehicles for the Gujarat State under a Dealership Agreement and it enjoyed such position since 2001 in terms of an agreement executed inter-se the relevant parties. The dealership was to last till 31st December, 2017. However, OP-1 shot letter dated 7th December, 2017 intimating the Informant that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31st December, 2017 may have caused pecuniary loss to the Informant does not raise any competition concern, even if, the consequence of such termination of dealership has proved advantageous to the dealers of OP-1 in neighbouring states of Gujarat to sell BMW cars to customers hailing from Gujarat. As regards, fiscal loss to the State of Gujarat in the form of Taxes leviable on sale of cars suffice it to say that apart from the Informant having no locus to raise such issue the revenue resources available to the State would depend on the profitability of business and it lies within the domain of the manufacturer, whether setting up of dealership in a particular State would promote its business and generate profit. It is inconceivable that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
