Case No. 48 of 2012. Case: PDA Trade Fairs (A Division of Pradeep Deviah & Associates Pvt. Ltd.) Vs India Trade Promotion Organization. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 48 of 2012
JudgesAshok Chawla, (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Dr. Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 19(5), 19(6), 2(r), 26(2), 29(r), 4
Judgement DateOctober 11, 2012
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

  1. The present information has been filed by M/s PDA Trade Fairs (A division of Pradeep Deviah & Associates Pvt. Ltd.) ('the informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against India Trade Promotion Organization ('the opposite party') alleging inter-alia contravention of Section 4 of the Act. The informant is a business organization engaged in the business of organizing international trade fairs, thereby bringing buyers and sellers to one common platform in order to facilitate interaction among them for furthering their respective businesses. For carrying out its business, the informant occasionally hires venues for organizing the said trade fairs.

  2. As per the information available in public domain, the opposite party is a nodal agency of Government of India engaged in promoting India's external trade. The opposite party is entrusted with the proactive role of catalysing trade, investment and technology transfer processes for which it, inter-alia, organizes fairs and exhibitions in India and abroad. For the said purpose, the opposite party has the control and management of the venue bookings at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi.

  3. The present case pertains to an agreement entered into between the informant and the opposite party wherein the informant booked some halls at Pragati Maidan by making an application to the opposite party, in October 2010, for an event named 'Delhi Wood' 2013. The opposite party through its letter dated 28th September, 2011, intimated the terms and conditions of allotment of halls at Pragati Maidan to the informant.

  4. The informant alleged Pragati Maidan to be an exclusive and irreplaceable venue for national and international exhibitions in the capital region, in terms of its area and also in terms its locational advantage. Though the information did not specifically define the relevant market, the facts appear to suggest that the informant tried to establish dominance of the opposite party in the market of 'providing venues for trade fairs/exhibitions in New Delhi'. The opposite party is alleged to be in a monopolistic/dominant situation being a Government of India enterprise, operating independently of competitive forces in the said relevant market. Informant contended that owing to its dominant position, the opposite party had put certain conditions in the allotment letter dated 28th September, 2011, which were unfair or discriminatory and created one-sided and onerous...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT