Competition Commission of India (CCI) issues order against All India Chess Federation (AICF) for abuse of dominant position and imposition of unreasonable vertical restraints on chess players and organisation of chess events; Imposes penalty of Rs. 6.92 lakhs on AICF for the Anti-Competitive conduct.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) received an information from four chess players who were subjected to disciplinary action by All India Chess Federation (AICF) for participation in a chess event not authorised by it. The case concerned several stipulations of AICF on chess players, organisation of chess tournaments, discretionary nomination of players, etc.
After a detailed investigation by the Director General, CCI conducted further inquiry in the matter and found AICF to enjoy dominant position in the markets for organization of professional chess tournaments/ events in India and services of chess players in India. In its order under Section 27 of the Act, CCI observed that AICF’s restriction on chess players to participate in unauthorised events and attendant punitive consequences restricted the movement of chess players and placed them and potential organisers of chess tournaments in a disproportional disadvantage. Hence, such stipulation was held as an unreasonable restriction on chess players and denial of market access to organisers of chess events/ tournaments, in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) read with 4(2)(b)(1) and Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The restrictions on chess players was further held to be in the nature of exclusive distribution and refusal to deal, in contravention of Section 3(4)(c) and Section 3(4)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, CCI directed that:
A penalty of INR 6.92 lakhs was also imposed on AICF for indulging into the anti-competitive conduct. A copy of the CCI’s order passed in Case No. 79 of 2011 has been uploaded on the website of CCI at www.cci.gov.in.
CBIC extends export incentives to shipments through Postal Export Bills from 15th January 2026 The Central Board of Indirect Taxes…
Supreme Court issues directions to Committee of Creditors for safeguard interests of homebuyers in Insolvency proceedings In a recent judgment,…
Provisions of section 69C not applicable for addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure on employee salary and Wages…
High Court declines to direct ITD to investigate allegations of tax evasion as per Tax Evasion Petition due to limitation…
Condoning delay in filing audit report in Form 10B as CA of the assessee was not aware of newly introduced…
There is no bar in penalty u/s 271B for non-audit u/s 44AB if penalty u/s 271A is also levied for…