MRTP Case-received from CAT. Case: Global Enterprise InfoTech Solutions (through its Proprietor) Vs I. SAP AG (German Parent Corporation) through its CEO and President Dietmar-Hopp-Allee and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | MRTP Case-received from CAT |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Section 420; Copy Right Act, 1956 - Sections 51, 52A, 63A and 63B; Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 4 and 26(1) |
| Judgement Date | May 12, 2011 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Judgment:
-
The case has been transferred to this Commission by Competition Appellate Tribunal vide their order dated 27th January, 2010. The case was originally filed before the MRTP Commission and Director General (I and R) was directed to investigate the matter, however, no report was filed by DG (I and R) till the transfer of the matter to this Commission.
-
The complainant alleged that the opposite parties were indulging into the prohibited monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices. The complainant also alleged that the opposite party No. 1 is abusing its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions in the license of granting its software. The Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 15.04.2010 and decided to call the Complainant to explain the case on 12.05.2010, However, despite being served the complainant did not appear before the Commission on 12.05.2010.
-
The relevant facts culled out from the complaint and the material filed in support thereof are being summarized as under:
3.1 The Complainant is running a Business of providing consultancy to various Small Business Groups in the field of Information Technology. For this purpose it recruits fresh software graduates to train them for proper use, knowledge and application of I.T. Resources. After training, these recruits were being deputed at the business site of complainant's clients. The complainant has purchased the license from opposite party No. 1 to use its software for 11 users to run their business.
3.2 The opposite party No. 1 is a German based parental company engaged in developing software and System Applications and Products in Data processing generally known as SAP products and selling licenses for use of the software. The opposite party No. 2 is the wholly owned Indian subsidiary company of the opposite party No. 1 in India. The opposite party No. 3 is the marketing agent of the opposite party 1 and 2 in India. The opposite party No. 4 claims itself to be an outsourcing agency for opposite party 1 and 2 in India to locate and prevent piracy of the software of the opposite party.
3.3 The opposite party No. 1 illegally forces the licensees to make payment of 50% or 100% amount in advance before signing any agreement and they do not supply copy of the agreement so signed between the parties till 100% payment is made. The complainant alleged that in this case the agreement signed was deceptive and misleading and the language of...
To continue reading
Request your trial