Car maker Hyundai was fined Rs 87 crore by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for anti-competitive discounting of its cars in a complaint made by two informants and Hyundai dealers - Fx Enterprise Solutions and St Antony’s Cars.

Talwar Thakore & Associates TT&A in collaboration with Vinod Dhall acted for Fx Enterprise Solutions led by competition law executive chairman Vinod Dhall, managing associate Sonam Mathur and associate Kabyashree Chaharia. Advocate Saraswat Mohpatra also appeared for Fx.

KK Sharma Law Offices founder KK Sharma with advocate Bunmeet Singh Grover acted for St Antony’s Cars.

Hyundai was represented by Chandhiok & Associates and the team comprised of Karan Singh Chandhiok, Vikram Sobti, Aroon Menon and Mathew George, alongside Hyundai senior manager legal Aditya Sharma and assistant manager legal Shri Sukomal Satyen.

The Indian Express reported:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) issued orders against Hyundai Motor India Ltd on Wednesday, for anti-competitive conduct. It found the company to be in violation of the Competition Act, 2002, for unfair business practices by providing discounts for its cars. The commission imposed a penalty of Rs 87 crore on the company. Further, a cease and desist order has been passed against the company.

The regulator penalised Hyundai for making arrangements with its dealers which resulted into Resale Price Maintenance in the sale of passenger cars manufactured by it. The arrangements included monitoring of the maximum permissible discount levels through a Discount Control Mechanism.

“Such conduct pertains to and emanates out of sale of motor vehicles. Hence, for the purposes of determining the relevant turnover for this infringement, revenue from sale of motor vehicles alone has to be taken into account,” CCI noted in its 44-page order.

Hyundai CCI order (PDF)

Click to show 10 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
Like +1 Object -0 Anonymous123 17 Jun 17, 19:26
Curiously enough, the order fails to mark the attendance of any of the members of TTA Vinod Dhall. I wonder why?
Reply Report to LI
Like +1 Object -0 Magik 21 Jun 17, 23:41
Because TTA only filed the information and did not appear in subsequent hearings or file anything post the DG Report. Nor did KK Sharma win anything, his only allegaton (exclusive dealership clause) was dismissed. Out of 5 allegations, excluding Abuse of dominance claims which came post DG investigation, only RPM and lube 'tying in' were allowed. Most were dismissed.
Reply Report to LI
Like +7 Object -0 Well 17 Jun 17, 20:12  interesting
Hence, this article!
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Departees 19 Jun 17, 17:12
TTA Dhall losing lots of junior associates I hear. Wonde why if they pay so well.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 19 Jun 17, 17:16
Do they pay the same as TTA as they do at TTA-Dhall?
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 MR X 19 Jun 17, 20:11
yes they do!!
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Difference? 20 Jun 17, 12:44
TTA Delhi office has a different culture to Mumbai office. But payment is the same.
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 20 Jun 17, 12:59
Interesting. So, if there is attrition at TTA Dhall, which I haven't heard about other than here, I guess it wouldn't be the pay. :)

In competition particularly though, competition (pun intended) for talent is pretty fierce so some attrition wouldn't be surprising...
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -0 Pablo Escobar 22 Nov 17, 16:49
Can someone confirm the salary of TTA Delhi and Mumbai?
Reply Report to LI
Like +0 Object -1 Maj Pankaj Rai 24 Nov 17, 16:30
It is unfortunate that after retirement from Competition Commission of India, Mr Vinod Dhall appears on behalf of clients before the same Competition Commission of India where he was the Chairman. Mr Dhall is representing the interests of NIIT Ltd in Case Nos 47/2017, 48/2017 and 49/2017 which in my view is in violation of Rule 7 of Bar Council of India Rules. It is also unfortunate that Competition Commission does not restrain ex-officials from appearing on behalf of clients, thereby causing apprehensions of bias. This is all the more unfortunate because it has been brought to the notice of Secretary Competition Commission to restrain members of the exclusive retired Club officials.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.