Case No. 48 of 2015. Case: Bharti Verma Vs Global Information Systems Technology Pvt. Ltd.. Competition Commision of India

Case Number:Case No. 48 of 2015
Party Name:Bharti Verma Vs Global Information Systems Technology Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel:For Appellant: Rashmi Jain, Advocate and Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Umang Jain, Advocate
Judges:Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta, M.S. Sahoo, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member)
Issue:Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4
Judgement Date:August 25, 2015
Court:Competition Commision of India
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") by Ms. Bharti Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') against Global Information Systems Technology Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OP') alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.

  2. As stated in the information, OP represents global publishers in India and is India's leading subscription agent.

  3. It is submitted that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), an apex body constituted for regulating the technical education in India, has made it mandatory for the technical institutions to subscribe to various e-journals in order to establish and/or continue as a technical educational institution in India. It is further submitted that for the academic year 2015-16, some of the journals, which were required to be subscribed mandatorily by the technical educational institutions in terms of the handbook of AICTE, were available with OP only.

  4. The Informant has alleged that AICTE has placed OP in a dominant position by making it mandatory for the technical educational institutions to have the subscription of e-journals which were exclusively available with OP. OP is thus alleged to be in a position of strength in India, which allows it to operate independently of the other players.

  5. The Informant has further alleged that OP is exploiting its dominant position to the prejudice of the technical educational institution. It is averred that OP is providing the subscription of these e-journals at an undeserving and exorbitant price without any concessions to the technical educational institutions. Furthermore, these technical educational institutions are required to pay the subscription amount in advance for a period of one year.

  6. Based on the above allegations, the Informant has alleged that the conduct of OP is in contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Thus, the Informant has prayed, inter alia, for initiation of an inquiry under the Act.

  7. The Commission heard the Informant and counsels on behalf of the parties in its ordinary meeting held on 23.07.2015 and directed the Informant to file any correspondence from AICTE to the technical educational institutions stating that the subscription of e-journals from OP is mandatory, any letter/communication sent by the Informant to other publishers of e-journals for technical education and...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL