Competition Law CIA 3

Case Comment

Submitted By:
Anujit Mookherji
1216408
9 BBA LLB B
School of Law
Christ University

Brunswick Corp. v. Publo Bowl-o- Mat Inc.

Citation: US Supreme Court (429 U.S. 477 (1977))

Facts:
Brunswick Corporation, involved in manufacturing of a particular bowling equipment, began
to acquire and operate all defaulted bowling alleys centres when such centres couldnt pay the
lease for the equipment. Over a period of 7 years, Brunswick Corporation acquired around
222 such centres, out of which some it disposed off or closed. By virtue of such buying
vringe, Brunswick Corporation turned out to be the largest operator of bowling centres in the
market.
Such dominance in the market was reported by a competing bowling alley centre operator,
Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat. It sued Brunswick Corporation under the Clayton Act, on the basis that
the said acquisitions in the market resulted in the problem of might substantially lessen
competition or tend to create monopoly. They further argues that without such acquisition,
the otherwise purchased bowling allwys would have gone out of business benefiting the
competitor, Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat.

Judgement:
The case after the initial stages reached the US Supreme Court, which rejected the claim
under the Clayton Act for lack of antitrust injury. The court held that even though Pueblo was
indeed harmed by such acquisition, it could not qualify as a anti-trust injury. The court
stated that antitrust laws were not intended to protect such kind of harm as in a situation of
absence of such acquisition, Pueblo would have had gained market share. On the contrary the
acquisition resulted in more competition as both parties are present in market with fierce
competition.
Court based its reasoning on ground that a Plaintiff could not recover damages suffered under
the antitrust laws for an action that actually increases competition instead of decreasing it,
even if the Plaintiff suffers injury. Thus the court held that the specific injury in the case
could not qualify as an antitrust injury.

Analysis:
Form the decision of the Court in the above case following two elements of antitrust injury
can be inferred:
i.

The claimed injury must be of the type hat the antitrust laws intend to prevent. Such
injury must be of the nature of competition-reducing and not competition-increasing
or competition-neutral. Antitrust laws were made and intended to protect competition
in the market and not interest of competitors. Thus an action that harms a competitor,
in this case the plaintiff, is not an antitrust violation unless that conduct harms

ii.

competition itself.
The Defendants alleged antitrust violation should have had proximately caused injury
to the Plaintiff. This is a basic causation as, if the Plaintiffs injury arises out of
something other than Defendants alleged violation then no antitrust injury occurs.

Ravinder Pal Singh v. BPTP Ltd.& Ors

Citation: Competition Commission of India (Case No. 14 of 2015)

Facts:
The complainant in the above case, a Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh alleged that the realty firm,
BPTP has misused its dominant position as a realty player. It was alleged that he had booked
an expandable flat but the flat that was ultimately delivered by the realty firm was not
expandable. He further alleged that BPTP failed to get necessary approvals from statutory
bodies for the allotment and use of the land.
Singh also mentioned in the complaint that he had booked an expandable flat measuring 250
yards in 2009 in the Park Elite Floor Project of the builder by paying all expenses including
brokerage and administrative charges. It was later found out by him that BPTP had failed to
get required clearances to use the land. Upon contacting BPTP about the clearances he was
informed that due to technical reasons, the clearances were not yet secured. In 2010, BPTP
insisted and impressed upon him to sign a Builder-Buyer agreement, along with affidavit and
undertaking, under the threat of forfeiting the entire amount that he had paid. He alleged that
the agreement was one-sided and entirely favoured BPTP.

Judgement:
The Competition Commission of India after adjudging the case in detail held that no
provision of Section 4 of the Act had been violated. The commission was of the view that the
aggrieved complainant was primarily injured and aggrieved by the unfair terms and
conditions of the Builder-Buyer Agreement. In order to determine the conduct of the opposite
party under Section 4 of the Act, the commission first deemed it necessary to determine the
relevant market Having regard to the facts of the case, the commission determined the
relevant product market in the present case as market for "provision of services for
development and sale of residential apartments. This was because the complainant was
looking for a residential apartment for which he availed the services of opposite party.
While considering the geographic market, the commission stated that the consumers looking
for a residential apartment in Faridabad may not prefer other neighbouring areas because of

various factors like proximity to workplace, transport connectivity etc. The commission
considered that all of the above played a decisive role in a potential buyers decision making
process while choosing a residential property in a particular area. Based on the above
inferences, the Commission held that the relevant market in the present case would be the
market for "provision of services for development and sale of residential apartments in
Faridabad.
Further since a case under Section 4 of the Act depends primarily on the position of
dominance of opposite party, it was pertinent to assess opposite partys dominance/position.
The commission based on information available in the public domain, held that opposite
party in the present case did not appear to be a dominant player in the relevant market of
services for development and sale of residential apartments in Faridabad, as there seemed to
be a presence of many real estate developers operating and competing with each other.
Thus the commission expressly held that though opposite party was one of the well known
builders/developers in the relevant market, this fact alone could not be relied upon completely
for establishing dominance. Thus Commission was of the view that prima facie opposite
party was not in a dominant position in the relevant market.

Analysis:
Based upon the facts and decision of the Commission it is important to note that in order to
ascertain a partys dominant position in the market, one should consider the position of the
opposite party in the relevant market. Relevant market may be appropriated based on a blend
of geographical and product market. Thus the fact that the opposite party is a popular player
in the relevant market alone would not be enough to prove dominance if there are more
players in the market.
It is however also important to understand the commissions view that that merely being in a
dominant position is not a violation of Section 4 of the Act; it is only when there is exercise
of such abusive behaviour which can cause Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition, can
the Commission issue a cease and desist order against the dominant party.