Amendments made by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 at a Glance I-19
Highlights of the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 I-23
Section Index I-37
GUIDE TO COMPETITION ACT, 2002
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 MRTP Act replaced by Competition Act, 2002 I-45
1.1-1 Distinction between MRTP Act and Competition Act I-45
1.2 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 I-46
1.3 Role and purpose of Competition Act, 2002 I-46
1.3-1 Control over abuse of dominant position in market I-47
1.4 Objects of the Competition Act I-48
1.4-1 Statement of Objects and Reasons for Competition Act, 2002 I-48
1.4-2 Objects and reasons of 2007 amendments I-49
1.4-3 Competition Act brought into force in stages I-50
1.5 Overall scheme of Competition Act, 2002 I-51
1.5-1 Purpose of the Act is to ensure free competition and eliminate abuse of dominant position I-51
1.5-2 Administration of Competition Act I-51
1.5-3 Anti-competitive agreements and Abuse of dominant position I-52
1.5-4 Combinations I-52
1.5-5 Penalties and Offences I-52
1.5-6 Appeal and compensation I-52
1.5-7 Arrangement of chapters and sections of Competition Act, 2002 I-52
1.6 Other Provisions of Competition Act I-53
1.6-1 Competition Act does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir I-53
1.6-2 Competition Act to have overriding effect I-53
1.6-3 Application of other laws not barred I-54
1.6-4 Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts I-54
1.6-5 Powers of Central Government I-54
1.6-6 Powers of Central Government to issue directions to CCI I-54
1.6-7 Restriction on disclosure of information I-55
1.6-8 Chairperson, members and officers are public servants I-55
1.6-9 Protection of action taken in good faith I-55
1.7 The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 I-55
1.7-1 New Concepts in the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 I-57
CHAPTER 2
DEFINITIONS UNDER COMPETITION ACT
2.1 Definitions applicable to various provisions of Competition Act I-58
2.2 Enterprises - Definition I-58
2.3 Person – Definition I-61
2.4 Agreement – Broad definition I-62
2.5 Trade - Definition I-62
2.6 Practice - Definition I-62
2.7 Goods – Broad definition I-62
2.8 Shares - Definition I-63
2.9 Service - Definition I-63
2.10 Price - Definition I-64
2.11 Consumer - Definition I-64
2.12 Group - Definition I-65
2.13 Control - Definition I-65
2.14 Statutory authority - Definition I-66
CHAPTER 3
PROHIBITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS
3.1 Anti-competitive agreements void I-67
3.1-1 Two categories of Anti-Competitive Agreements I-67
3.1-2 Entering into specified agreement itself is not offence I-68
3.2 What is ‘void agreement’ I-68
3.2-1 Void agreements under Contract Act I-69
3.3 Presumed anti-competitive agreements I-69
3.3-1 Shall be presumed I-70
3.3-2 Agreements presumed to be anti-competitive unless proved otherwise I-71
3.4 Agreement which directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices I-71
3.5 Agreement which limits or controls production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or provision of services I-72
3.5-1 Cartel is presumed anti-competitive agreement I-74
3.5-2 Protecting inefficient industry is not in public interest and in such cases ‘cartel’ is permissible I-77
3.6 Agreement which shares the market or source of production or provision of services I-77
3.7 Agreement which directly or indirectly results in bid rigging or collusive bidding I-78
3.7-1 Meaning of ‘Bid rigging’ I-78
3.8 Prohibition if the agreement affects competition I-79
3.8-1 Any other agreement which has appreciable effect on competition is covered under section 3(4) I-80
3.8-2 No presumption that the agreement is adversely affecting competition I-80
3.8-3 Pre-payment charges levied by Housing Finance Companies I-80
3.9 Tie-in arrangement can be anti-competitive I-80
3.10 Exclusive dealing agreement can be anti-competitive I-81
3.10-1 Territorial restrictions on dealers can be anti-competitive I-82
3.10-2 Negative covenant in case of franchises permitted I-83
3.10-3 Agreement between Indian Railways and SAIL for exclusive supply of rails I-84
3.11 Exclusive distribution agreement can be anti-competitive I-84
3.12 Agreement for Refusal to deal can be anti-competitive I-84
3.13 Resale price maintenance agreement can be anti-competitive I-85
3.14 Agreements not anti-competitive I-86
3.14-1 Agreements permitted under Intellectual Property Rights are not anti-competitive I-86
3.14-2 Right for exclusive export is not anti-competitive I-87
3.15 Factors to be considered while deciding effect of competition I-87
3.16 Rule of reason to decide whether provision is harmful to competition I-88
3.17 Agreement in restraint of trade is void to that extent under Contract Act I-89
CHAPTER 4
PROHIBITION OF ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION
4.1 Dominant position itself is not prohibited I-93
4.1-1 One sided contracts where bargaining power of parties is inequal are against public policy and are void I-94
4.2 Meaning of Dominant Position I-96
4.2-1 Relevant Market I-96
4.2-2 Factors to be considered while deciding whether enterprise enjoys dominant position I-97
4.2-3 What is ‘abuse of dominant position’ I-99
4.3 Unfair or discretionary conditions or prices in purchase/sale is abuse of dominant position I-99
4.3-1 Predatory price I-100
4.4 Limiting or restricting production or development I-102
4.5 Denial of market access is abuse of dominant position I-102
4.6 Supplementary obligations unconnected to main contract is abuse of dominant position I-103
4.7 Using dominant position to enter another market is abuse of dominant position I-103
4.8 CCI can order division of enterprise enjoying dominant position I-105
4.8-1 No compensation to any officer of company if there is division of enterprise I-106
CHAPTER 5
PROCEDURE IN CASE OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS OR ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION
5.1 Enquiry by CCI on information, reference or even suo motuI-107
5.1-1 CCI to make inquiry into anti-competitive agreements or dominant position I-107
5.1-2 Informant himself need not be aggrieved I-108
5.2 Procedure for inquiry under section 19 of Competition Act I-109
5.2-1 No notice or hearing is required at stage of giving directions to DG I-109
5.2-2 Issuing direction to DG is only administrative order I-109
5.2-3 DG can consider other relevant matters also during investigation I-110
5.3 Closing matter at initial stage itself I-110
5.4 Investigation and Report by DG I-110
5.5 Procedure if report of DG recommends that there is no contravention I-111
5.5-1 Further enquiry by Commission if DG is of opinion that there is contravention I-112
5.5-2 Show cause notice before passing final order I-112
5.6 Orders by Commission after inquiry into agreements or abuse of dominant position I-113
5.6-1 Order by Commission to discontinue agreement/abuse I-113
5.6-2 Imposition of penalty by CCI I-113
5.6-3 Direction by Commission to modify agreement I-114
5.7 Other orders and Payment of costs that can be ordered by CCI I-115
5.8 Order against any group company I-115
CHAPTER 6
SETTLEMENT AND COMMITMENT
6.1 Compromise between enterprise and CCI I-116
6.2 Settlement after receipt of report of DG but before final order I-116
6.2-1 Procedure for settlement I-118
6.3 Commitment by enterprise before submission of report of DG I-118
6.3-1 Procedure for commitment I-119
6.4 Revocation of settlement or commitment order and penalty I-119
CHAPTER 7
REGULATION OF COMBINATIONS
7.1 Control over mergers, amalgamations I-120
7.1-1 Transitory provisions in respect of combinations prior to 10-9-2024 I-120
7.2 Meaning of combination I-121
7.2-1 When acquisition by large enterprises will be ‘combination’ I-121
7.2-2 When acquisition by group will be ‘combination’ I-121
7.2-3 Acquisition of enterprise having similar goods/ services by a person I-122
7.2-4 Acquiring enterprise having similar goods/services by a group I-122
7.2-5 When Merger or amalgamation of enterprises will be combination I-123
7.2-6 When merger in group company will be ‘combination’ I-123
7.2-7 Transaction will be ‘combination’ if value of transaction exceeds Rs. 2,000 crores I-123
7.2-8 Transaction outside India can get covered if the enterprise has substantial operations in India I-124
7.3 Summary of ‘combinations’ I-124
7.4 Exemption from provisions relating to combination I-125
7.4-1 Transaction will not be ‘combination’ if value of assets or turnover below prescribed limits I-126
7.4-2 Exemption to Open Offers from provisions relating to combination I-127
7.5 Definition of various words used in relation to ‘combination’ I-127
7.5-1 Mode of calculation of value of assets upto 10-9-2024 I-129
7.5-2 Considering effect of inflation on value of assets or turnover as prescribed in the Act I-130
7.6 Regulation over combinations to ensure healthy competition I-130
7.6-1 Disclosure under section 6(4) sufficient if specified criteria fulfilled Provisions w.e.f. 10-9-2024 [Notice under section 6(2) not required] I-130
7.7 Mandatory notice to Commission I-132
7.7-1 Details of acquisition to be filed by Banks/PFI/FII/VCF I-134
7.7-2 Acquisitions which are exempt from provisions relating to ‘Combination’ I-134
CONTENTS
7.8 Cooling period of 150 days I-134
7.9 Penalty for violating provisions of Combinations I-135
CHAPTER 8
PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF REGULATION OF COMBINATION
8.1 Procedure to regulate combinations I-137
8.1-1 Inquiry after receipt of notice under section 6(2) I-137
8.2 Inquiry even if no notice filed by enterprise I-138
8.2-1 Factors to be considered in determining adverse effect of combination I-138
8.3 Initiation of investigation for combinations I-139
8.4 Procedure for conducting investigation into combinations w.e.f. 10-9-2024 I-141
8.5 Order of Commission after enquiry on combinations I-141
8.6 CCI can direct that combination shall not have effect, if likely to affect competition I-142
8.7 Effect if CCI declares combination void I-142
8.8 Other laws not affected I-142
8.9 Provisions relating to issue of statement by CCI and proposal of medications w.e.f. 10-9-2024 I-142
8.10 Provisions relating to orders by CCI I-143
CHAPTER 9
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (CCI)
9.1 Competition Commission of India I-145
9.1-1 CCI is independent authority to consider violations of Competition Act I-145
9.1-2 About CCI I-145
9.1-3 Disposal of cases by CCI as on 31-3-2022 I-146
9.1-4 CCI is a quasi-judicial body I-146
9.1-5 Other provisions relating to CCI I-147
9.1-6 Appeal against order of CCI I-147
9.2 Establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI) I-147
9.2-1 Composition of Competition Commission I-148 PAGE I-11
9.2-2 Selection of Chairperson and other Members I-148
9.2-3 Term of office of Chairperson and other Members I-149
9.2-4 Vacancy in office of Chairman I-149
9.2-5 Restriction on employment of Chairperson and other Members in certain cases I-150
9.2-6 Administrative powers of Chairperson I-150
9.2-7 Salary and allowances and other terms and conditions of Chairperson and other members I-151
9.2-8 Vacancy, etc., not to invalidate proceedings of Commission I-151
9.3 Duties, functions and authorities of Competition Commission I-151
9.3-1 Competition advocacy or culture I-152
9.4 Commission has powers despite other laws I-152
9.4-1 Acts taking place outside India but having an effect on competition in India I-153
9.4-2 Commission can enter into arrangement with foreign agency I-154
9.4-3 Engagement of experts and professionals by CCI I-154
9.5 Reference by or to statutory authority I-154
9.5-1 Reference by statutory authority I-154
9.5-2 Reference to statutory authority I-155
9.6 Issuing regulations by Commission I-156
9.6-1 Procedure and guidelines for issuing regulations by Commission I-156
9.6-2 Power of Commission to issue guidelines I-157
9.6-3 Form for issue guidelines by CCI I-157
9.7 Finance, Accounts and Audit I-158
9.8 Furnishing of returns, etc. to Central Government I-158
CHAPTER 10
DIRECTOR GENERAL, SECRETARY AND OFFICERS
10.1 Functions of Director General and Secretary I-159
10.2 Appointment of Director General I-159
10.2-1 Powers of Director General to investigate contraventions I-160 PAGE CONTENTS I-12
I-13
CONTENTS
10.2-2 Earlier provision regarding powers of DG for investigation I-163
10.3 Person can appear before DG through Advocate I-164
10.4 Secretary, experts, professionals and officers and other employees of Commission I-164
10.4-1 Salary and terms and conditions of Secretary and other employees of Commission I-165
CHAPTER 11
GENERAL PROCEDURES BEFORE CCI
11.1 Functioning of CCI I-166
11.1-1 Commission to regulate its own procedure I-166
11.2 Meetings of Competition Commission I-166
11.2-1 Coram for meetings of Commission I-167
11.2-2 Types of meetings I-167
11.2-3 Time and place and agenda of meeting I-168
11.2-4 Attendance at meeting of CCI I-168
11.2-5 Special meetings of Commission I-168
11.3 Appearance before Competition Commission I-169
11.4 Procedure for proceedings before CCI I-169
11.4-1 Contents of information or the reference I-171
11.4-2 Procedure for filing of information or reference I-171
11.4-3 Procedure for scrutiny of information or reference I-172
11.4-4 Preliminary conference by Commission I-172
11.4-5 Communication of order passed under section 26(2) or 26(2A) of the Competition Act I-173
11.4-6 Procedure for inquiry under section 26 of the Competition Act I-173
11.4-7 Powers of Commission to join or substitute parties in proceedings I-174
11.4-8 Reference from statutory authority or the Central Government or a State Government I-176
11.4-9 Reference by the Commission to statutory authority for opinion I-176
11.4-10 Confidentiality I-176
11.4-11 Requiring Affidavit for Compliance of orders of Commission I-177 PAGE
11.5 Inspection and certified copies of documents I-177
11.5-1 Continuation of proceedings after death of a party or adjudication of a party as insolvent I-177
11.5-2 Non-compliance of Regulations will not invalidate proceedings I-177
11.5-3 Taking of evidence I-177
11.6 Power of Commission and Director General to call for information and documents, summon witnesses etc. I-178
11.6-1 Power of Commission or Director General to issue commissions for examination of witnesses or documents I-179
11.6-2 Authorizing a representative to appear before CCI I-179
11.6-3 Authorizing an Advocate to accompany any person summoned by the Director General I-179
11.6-4 Proceedings before Commission not to be open to public I-179
11.6-5 Procedure for imposition of penalty under the Competition Act I-179
11.7 Fee under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act I-180
11.7-1 Inspection and copying fees I-180
11.8 Empanelment of special counsel by Commission I-180
11.8-1 Inviting experts of eminence to assist Commission I-181
11.9 Implementation and monitoring of orders passed by the Commission I-181
11.9-1 Publication of orders and decisions of CCI I-182
11.9-2 Removal of difficulties I-182
11.10 Powers of Commission during proceedings I-182
11.10-1 Commission has powers of Civil Court I-182
11.10-2 Power to call experts I-183
11.10-3 Power to direct production of documents and information I-183
11.11 Orders of Commission and its execution I-183
11.11-1 Issue interim ex parte orders I-183
11.12 Rectification of orders I-184
11.12-1 Meaning of ‘Mistakes apparent from records’ I-185
11.12-2 Mistakes that can be rectified I-186
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 12 PENALTIES AND PUNISHMENTS
12.1 Penalties that can be imposed by Commission I-188
12.1-1 Penalty for contravention of orders of Commission I-188
12.1-2 Penalty for not giving notice u/s 6(2) of Competition Act I-189
12.1-3 Penalty for failure to comply with directions of Commission and Director General I-189
12.1-4 Penalty for making false statement or omission to furnish material information I-189
12.1-5 Penalty for contraventions in relation to furnishing of information I-189
12.2 Contravention by companies and firms I-190
12.3 Lesser penalty if full disclosure made, in case of cartel I-191
12.4 Procedure for imposing penalty by Commission I-193
12.5 Compounding of certain offences I-193
CHAPTER 13 APPEALS
13.1 Appeal from order of CCI to NCLAT I-195
13.1-1 Appeal to NCLAT I-195
13.1-2 Who can file appeal I-196
13.1-3 Time limit for filing appeal I-196
13.1-4 Pre-deposit for filing appeal I-196
13.2 Orders against which appeal can be filed I-196
13.2-1 CCI is a necessary or proper party before NCLAT I-197
13.2-2 Appeal cannot be dismissed if no Pre-deposit of penalty but stay stands vacated I-197
13.2-3 Hearing and order by NCLAT I-197
13.3 Procedure by NCLAT I-197
13.4 Powers of NCLAT I-198
13.4-1 Procedure before NCLAT are judicial proceedings I-198
13.5 Review of orders of Appellate Tribunal I-198
13.6 Contempt proceedings for contravention of order of NCLAT I-200
13.7 Overview of NCLAT I-200
13.8 Procedure for filing appeals I-201
13.9 Execution of orders of Commission imposing monetary penalty I-201
13.10 Punishment for contravention of orders of Commission by criminal court I-202
13.11 Appeal to Supreme Court against order of NCLAT I-202
CHAPTER 14 COMPENSATION
14.1 Awarding compensation by NCLAT I-203
14.1-1 When application can be made before NCLAT for compensation I-204
14.1-2 Provision relating to compensation I-204
14.2 Compensation in case of contravention of orders of Commission I-205
14.3 Procedure for filing application for compensation I-206 SUBJECT INDEX I-207
DIVISION ONE : COMPETITION ACT, 2002
DIVISION TWO : NOTIFICATIONS
DIVISION THREE : RULES & REGULATIONS UNDER COMPETITION LAW
3.1COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (DETERMINATION OF COST OF PRODUCTION) REGULATIONS, 2025
3.2COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (RETURN ON MEASURES FOR THE PROMOTION OF COMPETITION ADVOCACY, AWARENESS AND TRAINING ON COMPETITION ISSUES) RULES, 2008 3.5
3.3COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (MANNER OF RECOVERY OF MONETARY PENALTY) REGULATIONS, 2025 3.9
3.4COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (FORM AND FEE FOR FILING AN APPEAL AND FEE FOR FILING COMPENSATION APPLICATIONS) RULES, 2009 3.20
I-17 CONTENTS
3.5COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (MEETING FOR TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS) REGULATIONS, 2009 3.26
3.6COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (PROCEDURE FOR ENGAGEMENT OF EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS) REGULATIONS, 2009 3.31
3.7COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (FORM OF ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS) RULES, 2009 3.41
3.8COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (FORM AND TIME OF PREPARATION OF ANNUAL REPORT) RULES, 2008 3.60
3.9COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (TERM OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE AND THE MANNER OF SELECTION OF PANEL OF NAMES) RULES, 2008 3.68
3.10 COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER MEMBERS) RULES, 2009 3.70
3.11 COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (RECRUITMENT, SALARIES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF OFFICERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES) RULES, 2010 3.77
3.12 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (TERM OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE AND THE MANNER OF SELECTION OF PANEL OF NAMES) RULES, 2008 3.87
3.13 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION) RULES, 2003 3.89
3.14 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER MEMBERS) RULES, 2003 3.91
3.15COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (DIRECTOR GENERAL) RECRUITMENT RULES, 2009 3.94
3.16 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (OATH OF OFFICE AND OF SECRECY FOR CHAIRPERSON AND OTHER MEMBERS) RULES, 2003 3.97
3.17 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (SALARY, ALLOWANCES, OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF THE SECRETARY AND OFFICERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE NUMBER OF SUCH OFFICERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES) RULES, 2009 3.99
3.18 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL, JOINT, DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-GENERAL, OTHER OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, THEIR MANNER OF APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION, SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 2009 3.126
3.19COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (COMBINATIONS) REGULATIONS, 2024
3.20 COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS, 2011 3.169
3.21 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (COMPETITION ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC LEGISLATIONS AND POLICIES) GUIDELINES, 2017 3.173
3.22COMPETITION (FORM OF PUBLICATION OF GUIDELINES) RULES, 2023
3.23 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (LESSER PENALTY) REGULATIONS, 2024
3.24 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (DETERMINATION OF MONETARY PENALTY) GUIDELINES, 2024
3.25 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (COMMITMENT) REGULATIONS, 2024 3.195
3.26
3.27
3.28 COMPETITION (MINIMUM VALUE OF ASSETS OR TURNOVER) RULES, 2024
3.29 COMPETITION (CRITERIA OF COMBINATION) RULES, 2024 3.217
3.30 COMPETITION (CRITERIA FOR EXEMPTION OF COMBINATIONS) RULES, 2024
3.31
DIVISION FOUR : TRIBUNALS REFORMS ACT & RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER
DIVISION FIVE : CASE LAWS DIGEST
CHAPTER
PROHIBITION OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS
3.1 Anti-competitive agreements void
Secti o n 3 of Co mpeti ti o n Act pr ovi des f or pr o hi bi ti o n of Anti - Co mpeti ti ve Agr ee me nt s.
No e nt er pri s e or ass oci ati o n of e nt er pri s es or pers o n or ass oci ati o n of pers o ns s hall e nt er i nt o a ny agr ee me nt i n r es pect of pr o d ucti o n, s uppl y, di st ri b uti o n, st or age, ac q ui si ti o n or c o nt r ol of g oo ds or pr ovi si o n of s er - vi ces, whi c h c a us es or i s li kel y t o c a us e a n a ppr eci a bl e a dvers e eff ect o n c o mpeti ti o n w i t hi n I ndi a. [ Secti o n 3( 1) of Co mpeti ti o n Act].
Any agr ee me nt e nt er e d i nt o i n c o nt r ave nti o n of t he pr ovi si o ns c o nt ai ne d i n s ecti o n 3( 1) s hall be v oi d. [ Secti o n 3( 2) of Co mpeti ti o n Act].
3.1-1
Two categories of Anti-Competitive Agreements
Anti - c o mpeti ti ve agr ee me nt s ar e s peci fi e d i n t he Co mpeti ti o n Act i n t wo c at e g ori es –
( a ) Pr es u me d a nti - c o mpeti ti ve agr ee me nt s - Her e b ur de ni s o n t he part y ( def e nda nt) t o pr ove t hat t he pr acti ce i s not a nti - c o mpeti ti ve [ s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act].
(b ) Anti c o mpeti ti ve i f agr ee me nt aff ect s c o mpeti ti o n - Her e t he b ur de n i s o n a ppell a nt ( who i s all e gi ng a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ce) t o pr ove t hat t he pr acti ce i s a nti - c o mpeti ti ve [ s ecti o n 3( 4) of Co mpeti ti o n Act].
Agreements prior to the implementation of Act are not void – The Co m - peti ti o n Act does not act r et r os pecti vel y i.e. agr ee me nt e nt er e d pri or t o
20- 5- 2009i s not v oi d. Ho wever, t he Act wo ul d c over eve n earli er agr ee me nt s a nd e nq ui r y c a n be c o nd uct e d –Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. v. CCI ( 2011) 108 S CL 621 = 12 t ax ma nn. c o m 285 ( Bo m HC DB).
Exemption to vessel sharing agreements for three years upto 4-7-2021 – Vess el s s hari ng agr ee me nt s of Li ner Shi ppi ng I nd ust r y has bee n e xe mpte d f r o m pr ovi si o ns of s ecti o n 3 of Co mpeti ti o n Act f or t hr ee ye ars ( upt o 4- 7- 2021) i n r es pect of all c arri ers of all nati o nali ti es oper ati ng f r o m s hi p of a ny nati o nali t y. Suc h arr a nge me nt s ho ul d not i ncl ude fi xi ng of pri ces, li m i t ati o n of s al es or all oc ati o n of mar ket. The Di r ect or Ge ner al of Shi ppi ng s hall mo ni t or t he agr ee me nt – Noti fi c ati o n No. S O 3250( E), dat e d 4- 7- 2018 [ e arli er No. S O 1933( E) dat e d 16- 6- 2017 whi c h was vali d f or t he peri o d 16- 6- 2017 t o 16- 6- 2018].
It s ee ms t he e xe mpti o n has not bee n e xt e nde d.
3.1-2 Entering into specified agreement itself is not offence
Ent eri ng i nt o s peci fi e d agr ee me nt by i t s el f i s not off e nce under t he Co m - peti ti o n Act.
Agr ee me nt s peci fi e d i n s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act i s pr es u me d t o be a nti - c o mpeti ti ve a nd b ur de n i s o n t he e nt er pri s e t o est a bli s h t hat t hes e ar e not a nti - c o mpeti ti ve.
I n c as e of agr ee me nt s s peci fi e d i n s ecti o n 3( 4) of Co mpeti ti o n Act, t he b ur de n i s o n i nf or ma nt t o est a bli s h t hat t hes e ar e a nti - c o mpeti ti ve.
Act is not a penal Act, as agreement specified in section 3 by itself is not offence - Co mpeti ti o n Act i s not a pe nal Act as i t does not ma ke p uni s ha bl e by i t s el f a n act of e nt eri ng i nt o a n agr ee me nt, c o nt r ar y t o pr ovi si o ns of Act. Br e ac h of s ecti o ns 3 a nd 4 of Co mpeti ti o n Act by i t s el f i s not a n off e nce a nd, t her ef or e, e nt eri ng i nt o a n agr ee me nt, c o nt r ar y t o pr ovi si o ns of l a w , i s not a n off e nce b ut s uc h agr ee me nt i s o nl y v oi d t hat may not be e nf or ce a bl e i n l a w . Eve n i f parti es e nt er i nt o a n agr ee me nt c over e d by Act t hat by i t s el f, does not a mo unt t o a n off e nce. What i s ma de p uni s ha bl e i s di s o be di e nce of or der pass e d by Co mm i ssi o n a nd i t s no n- c o mpli a nceKingfisher Airlines Ltd. v. CCI ( 2011) 108 S CL 621 = 12 t ax ma nn. c o m 285 ( Bo m HC DB).
3.2 What is ‘void agreement’
Pr ovi si o ns r el ati ng t o v oi d agr ee me nt have bee n s peci fi e d i n Co nt r act Act.
An agr ee me nt not e nf or ce a bl e by l a w i s s ai d t o be v oi d. [ Secti o n 2( g ) of Co nt r act Act].
Not e t hat i t i s not ‘ v oi d c o nt r act’, as a n agr ee me nt whi c h i s not e nf or ce a bl e by l a w does not bec o me ‘ c o nt r act’ at all.
Void agreement need not be illegal - Voi d me a ns n ull a nd i neff ecti ve a nd w i t ho ut a ny l e gal f or ce or bi ndi ng eff ect. It nee d not be ill e gal. It will be ill e gal i f s peci fi c all y decl ar e d s o.
A v oi d agr ee me nt or v oi da bl e c o nt r act ( whi c h i s not ill e gal ) i s not p uni s ha bl e under Cri m i nal La w .
Compensation under Void Agreement - A v oi d agr ee me nt c a nnot be e n - f or ce d i n Co urt of La w , b ut c o mpe ns ati o n/ da mages c a n be cl ai me d a nd r et ur n of be nefi t s o bt ai ne d under v oi d agr ee me nt c a n be cl ai me d.
3.2-1 Void agreements under Contract Act
Foll o w i ng ar e v oi d agr ee me nt s under Co nt r act Act –
u
Agr ee me nt w i t h pers o n i nc o mpet e nt t o c o nt r act (li ke m i nor, pers o n of uns o und m i nd, undi s c har ge d i ns ol ve nt, ali e n e ne my, c o nvi ct) ( s ecti o n 11 of Co nt r act Act).
Bot h parti es under m i st a ke of f act ( s ecti o n 20 of Co nt r act Act).
u
u
Unl a wf ul o bj ect or c o nsi der ati o n ( s ecti o n 23 a nd s ecti o n 24 of Co n - t r act Act).
Agr ee me nt w i t ho ut c o nsi der ati o n ( s ecti o n 25 of Co nt r act Act).
u
u
Agr ee me nt i n r est r ai nt of marri age ( s ecti o n 26 of Co nt r act Act).
Agr ee me nt i n r est r ai nt of t r a de ( s ecti o n 27 of Co nt r act Act).
u
u
Agr ee me nt i n r est r ai nt of l e gal pr ocee di ngs ( s ecti o n 28 of Co nt r act Act).
Uncert ai n agr ee me nt ( s ecti o n 29 of Co nt r act Act).
u
u
u
Wageri ng agr ee me nt ( s ecti o n 30 of Co nt r act Act).
Agr ee me nt t o do a n i mpossi bl e Act ( fi rst s e nt e nce of s ecti o n 56 of Co nt r act Act).
Provisions of Agreement in restraint of trade in Contract Act – Pr ovi si o ns i n r es pect of agr ee me nt i n r est r ai nt of t r a de as c o nt ai ne d i n s ecti o n 27 of Co nt r act Act ar e a ppli c a bl e mutatis mutandis i n Co mpeti ti o n Act al s o.
3.3 Presumed anti-competitive agreements
As per s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act, a ny agr ee me nt e nt er e di nt o bet wee n e nt er pri s es or ass oci ati o ns of e nt er pri s es or pers o ns or ass oci ati o ns of pers o ns or bet wee n a ny pers o n a nd e nt er pri s e or pr acti ce c arri e d o n, or deci si o n t a ke n by, a ny ass oci ati o n of e nt er pri s es or ass oci ati o n of pers o ns, i ncl udi ng c art el s, e ngage di ni de nti c al or si mil ar t r a de of g oo ds or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces, shall be presumed to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition, whi c h –
(a)
di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y det er m i nes p ur c has e or s al e pri ces.
(b ) li m i t s or c ont r ol s pr oducti on , s uppl y, mar ket s, t ec hni cal devel op me nt, i nvest me nt or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces.
( c ) s har es t he mar ket or s o ur ce of pr o d ucti o n or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces by way of all oc ati o n of ge ogr a p hi c al ar e a of mar ket, or t y pe of g oo ds or s er vi ces, or n u mber of c ust o mers i n t he mar ket or a ny ot her si mil ar way.
(d ) di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y r es ul t s i n bi d ri ggi ng or c oll usi ve bi ddi ng.
Provision does not apply to joint ventures if it improves efficiency -
Not hi ng c o nt ai ne d i n s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act s hall a ppl y t o a ny agr ee me nt e nt er e d i nt o by way of j oi nt ve nt ur es i f s uc h agr ee me nt i ncr e as es effi ci e nc y i n pr o d ucti o n, s uppl y, di st ri b uti o n, st or age, ac q ui si ti o n or c o nt r ol of g oo ds or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces – Fi rst pr ovi s o t o s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act.
Enterprise or persons not engaged in similar trade may get covered - An e nt er pri s e or ass oci ati o n of e nt er pri s es or a pers o n or ass oci ati o n of pers o ns t ho ug h not e ngage d i n i de nti c al or si mil ar t r a de s hall al s o be pr es u me d t o be part of t he agr ee me nt under s ecti o n i f i t parti ci pat es or i nt e nds t o par - ti ci pat e i n t he f urt her a nce of s uc h agr ee me nt – Sec o nd pr ovi s o t o s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act, i ns ert e d vide Co mpeti ti o n ( A me nd me nt) Act, 2023 f r o m 18- 5- 2023.
3.3-1 Shall be presumed
The wor ds us e d i n t he s ecti o n ar e ‘ s hall be pr es u me d’. As per s ecti o n 4 of Evi de nce Act, wher e ver i t i s di r ect e d t hat t he Co urt s hall pr es u me a f act, i t s hall r e gar d s uc h f act as pr ove d, unl ess a nd until i t i s di s pr ove d. - - Th us, t he pr es u mpti o n i s r e b utt a bl e, i.e. t he def e nda nt c a n pr ove t hat i t has no a ppr eci a bl e a dvers e eff ect o n c o mpeti ti o n.
The CCI a nd Tri b unal s hall pr es u me t hat t he pr acti ces e n u mer at e d i n s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act ar e a nti - c o mpeti ti ve. Ho we ver, def e nda nt c a n pr ove t hat t hes e ar e not a nti - c o mpeti ti ve.
Meaning of ‘shall presume’ - The t er m ‘ s hall pr es u me ’ us e di n a n Act me a ns i t i s a ‘ r e b utt a bl e pr es u mpti o n ’ Pr oof t o t he c o nt r ar y c a n be s ub m i tt e d -
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals - 1998( 99) ELT 33 ( S C) * Sodhi Transport v. State of UP ( 1986) 62 S T C 381 = AI R 1986 S C 1099 = ( 1986) 2 S CC 486 * M S Madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi 2003 AI R S C W 7165 = 46 S CL 695 ( S C).
Pr es u mpti o n i s a n i nf er e nce, affi r mati ve or di s- affi r mati ve of t he t r ut h or f al s e hoo d of a do ubt f ul f act or pr oposi ti o n dr a wn by pr ocess of pr o ba bl e r e as o ni ng f r o m s o met hi ng pr ove d or t a ke n f or gr a nt e d –Izhar Ahmad v.
UOI AI R 1962 S C 1052 – q uot e d w i t h a ppr oval i n M S Madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi
2003 AI R S C W 7165 = 46 S CL 695 ( S C).
Further evidence not required - I n Vedant Bio Sciences v. Chemists and Druggists Association of Baroda ( 2012) 115 S CL 757 = 25 t ax ma nn. c o m184 ( CCI), i t was hel d t hat o nce e xi st e nce of pr o hi bi t e d agr ee me nt, pr acti ce or deci si o n e n u mer at e d i n s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act i s est a bli s he d, t her e i s no f urt her nee d t o s ho w a n eff ect o n c o mpeti ti o n i n vi e w of t he r e b utt a bl e pr es u mpti o n i n s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act.
Presumption is rebuttable by evidence - The t er m‘ s hall pr es u me ’ us e d i n a n Act me a ns i t i s a ‘ r e b utt a bl e pr es u mpti o n ’ Pr oof t o t he c o nt r ar y c a n be s ub m i tt e dState of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals - 1998( 99) ELT 33 ( S C) * Sodhi Transport v. State of UP ( 1986) 62 S T C 381 = AI R 1986
S C 1099 = ( 1986) 2 S CC 486 * M S Madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi 2003 AI R S C W 7165 = 46 S CL 695 ( S C).
Practices are ‘Presumed’ not ‘deemed’ - The pr acti ces (a) t o (d ) ar e ‘ pr es u me d a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ces ’ . The y ar e not ‘ dee me d’ a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ces.
Di sti ncti o n bet wee n ‘ pr es u me d’ a nd ‘ dee me d’ i s t hat i n c as e of a ‘ dee m i ng pr ovi si o n ’ , Co urt has t o ass u me t hat t he ‘ dee me d posi ti o n ’ i s ‘ r e al posi ti o n ’ a nd a ppl y l a w acc or di ngl y. Def e nda nt c a nnot pr ove t hat t he y ar e not r e - all y a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ces. I n c as e of ‘ pr es u me d pr acti ce ’ , def e nda nt c a n pr ove t hat t he y ar e not a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ces, b ut o nl y b ur de n of pr oof i s o n hi m .
3.3-2 Agreements presumed to be anti-competitive unless proved otherwise
Agr ee me nt s whi c h ar e pr es u me d t o be a nti - c o mpeti ti ve unl ess pr ove d ot her w i s e, as s peci fi e d i n s ecti o n 3( 3) of Co mpeti ti o n Act ar e di s c uss e d bel o w o ne by o ne.
3.4 Agreement which directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices
Agr ee me nt whi c h di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y det er m i nes p ur c has e or s al e pri ces, i s pr es u me d t o be a nti - c o mpeti ti ve – Secti o n 3( 3)(a) of Co mpeti ti o n Act.
Directly or indirectly determining purchase or sale price’ may include ‘Resale Price Maintenance’ - I n my opi ni o n ‘ di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y det erm i ni ng p ur c has e or s al e pri ce ’ will i ncl ude ‘ Res al e Pri ce Mai nt e na nce ’ al s o a nd he nce i t will be a‘ pr es u me d a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pri ce ’ , t ho ug h‘ r es al e pri ce mai nt e na nce ’ i s c over e d under s ecti o n 3( 4) of Co mpeti ti o n Act.
Uber and Ola do not enter into price fixation agreements with drivers – I n Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India ( 2021) 3 S CC 136 = 164 S CL 344 = 122 t ax ma nn. c o m 150 ( S C 3 me mber be nc h), i t has bee n hel d t hat Ol a a nd Uber ( r a di o t axi s er vi ce pr ovi ders) have not e nt er e d i nt o
pri ce fi xi ng agr ee me nt w i t h dri vers, as dri vers wer e i nde pe nde nt a nd acte d i nde pe nde ntl y of e ac h ot her [ affi r m i ng
Samir Agrawal v. Competition
Commission of India ( 2020) 122 t ax ma nn. c o m 149 ( NCL AT)].
3.5 Agreement which limits or controls production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or provision of services
Agr ee me nt whi c h li m i t s or c o nt r ol s pr o d ucti o n, s uppl y, mar ket s, t ec hni c al de vel op me nt, i nvest me nt or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces, i s pr es u me d t o be a n - ti - c o mpeti ti ve – Secti o n 3( 3)(b ) of Co mpeti ti o n Act.
Wor di ng of s ecti o n 33( 1)( g) of MRTP Act was si mil ar.
Restrictions on production, distribution or exhibition of films by non-members - I n Reliance Big Entertainment Ltd. v. Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce ( 2012) 112 S CL 159 = 18 t ax ma nn. c o m 301 ( CCI), t he ass oci ati o n was i nd ul gi ng i n f oll o w i ng(a) pl aci ng r est ri cti o ns not t o de al w i t h no n- me mbers (b ) i mposi ng r est ri cti o ns o n n u mber of s cr ee ns f or no n- r e gi o nal fil ms ( c ) e nf or ci ng r est ri cti o ns by ba nni ng fil ms, c oll ec - ti ve boyc ott, w i t hhol di ng s har e et c. It was hel d t hat t hi s r es ul t e d i n li m i t o n s uppl y a nd di st ri b uti o n of fil ms i n mar ket. It cr e at e d barri ers t o e nt r y i nt o mar ket by no n- me mbers. Pe nal t y was i mpos e d o n t he ass oci ati o n a nd t he y wer e as ke d t o desi st f r o ms uc h pr acti ces. The or der has bee n up hel d i n Motion Pictures Association v. Reliance Big Entertainment P. Ltd . ( 2014) 123 S CL 55 = 35 t ax ma nn. c o m 237 ( CAT).
I n Reliance Big Entertainment Ltd. v. Tamil Film Exhibitors Association ( 2014) 123 S CL 294 = 40 t ax ma nn. c o m 476 ( CCI), t he ass oci ati o n ha d i ss ue d i nst r ucti o ns t o i t s me mbers t o ba n o ne fil m . It was hel d t hat t hi s act i s a nti - c o mpeti ti ve.
I n Sajjan Khaitan v. Eastern India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA) ( 2012) 115 S CL 383 = 25 t ax ma nn. c o m 275 ( CCI), EI MP A a nd Coor di nati o n Co mm i tt ee of vari o us ass oci ati ons of Ci ne Arti st s, wor kers a nd Tec hni ci a ns r ai s e d o bj ecti o ns a bo ut t el ec ast of d ubbe d versi o n of H i ndi s eri al ( Ma ha bhar at) i n Be ngali a nd i ss ue d i nst r ucti o ns t o st op i t s t el ec ast t o t he T V c ha nnel. It was hel d t hat t hi s i s a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ce. Ce as e a nd desi st or ders wer e i ss ue d – The vi e w has bee n c o nfi r me d i n CCI v. Coordination Committee of Artists ( 2017) 5 S CC 17 = 140 S CL 655 = 79 t ax ma nn. c o m 136 ( S C).
I n Mrs. Manju Tharad v. Eastern India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA) ( 2012) 114 S CL 20 = 22 t ax ma nn. c o m 87 ( CCI), t he pr acti ce of EI MP A r est ri cti ng i t s me mbers not t o de al w i t h no n- me mbers, ma ki ng c o mp ul s or y r e gi st r ati o n of e ac h fil m bef or e r el e as e i n t hei r t erri t or y wer e hel d as a nti - c o mpeti ti ve.
Restrictions by AssociationsI n Vedant Bio Sciences v. Chemists and Druggists Association of Baroda ( 2012) 115 S CL 757 = 25 t ax ma nn. c o m
184 ( CCI), t he Ass oci ati o n ha d f or mul at e d g ui deli nes whi c h r e q ui r e d f or pr oc ur e me nt of NOC f r o mass oci ati o n by t he p har mace uti c al c o mpa ny f or s e ver al as pect s li ke l a unc h of ne w c o mpa ny pr o d uct s, a ppoi nt me nt of ne w st oc ki st, a ddi ti o n of st oc ki st et c. I f NOC was not o bt ai ne d, p har mace uti c al c o mpa ny c o ul d not s uppl y a nd s ell dr ugs i n mar ket. It was hel d t hat t he c o nd uct a nd pr acti ces of Ass oci ati o n ar e a nti - c o mpeti ti ve - Si mil ar or der i n
Varca Druggists and Chemist v. Chemists and Druggists Association, Goa ( 2012) 114 S CL 86 ( Mag) = 23 t ax ma nn. c o m 136 ( CCI) * Santuka Associates
P. Ltd. v. All India Organisation of Chemists and Drugists ( 2013) 120 S CL 172 = 35 t ax ma nn. c o m 393 ( CCI) *
Peeveear Medical Agencies, Kerala v.
All India Organisation of Chemists and Drugists ( 2014) 126 S CL 303 = 42 t ax ma nn. c o m 394 ( CCI) * Chemists and Druggists Association, Goa, I n r e ( 2015) 130 S CL 677 = 52 t ax ma nn. c o m 124 ( CCI) * PK Krishnan v. Paul Madavana ( 2016) 65 t ax ma nn. c o m 250 ( CCI).
Insisting on NOC from Association - Re q ui r e me nt t hat ‘ No Obj ecti o n ’ s ho ul d be o bt ai ne d f r o m Ass oci ati o n bef or e mar keti ng ne w pr o d uct s or di s c o nti n ui ng or a ddi ng ne wst oc ki est i s a nti - c o mpeti ti veDGIR v. All India
Organisation of Chemists & Druggists ( 1996) 87 Co mp Cas 544 ( MRTP C). - Sa me vi e w i n DGIR v. Bengal Chemist & Druggist Assn. ( 1997) 27 CL A 182 ( MRTP C).
Truck Owners association not allowing trucks from non-members -
Tr uc k O wners Ass oci ati o n pr e ve nti ng c o mpl ai na nt f r o m hi ri ng t r uc ks of oper at ors who ar e not me mbers of t hei r Uni o n i s a nti - c o mpeti ti veMewar
Chamber of Commerce & Industry v. Bhilwara Dist. Truck Operators Assn. ( 1995) 3 CTJ 7 ( MRTP C) * Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. v. Janta Truck Union ( 1997) 5 CTJ 285 ( MRTP C).
Restrictions on distributor in selling goodsCo ndi ti o n i n agr ee me nt w i t h di st ri b ut or t hat di st ri b ut or will not ma ke s uppli es t o c he m i st s, doct ors a nd Gover n me nt or pri vat e i nsti t uti o n e ve n t ho ug h di st ri b ut or must acce pt t he or der. Sell er will s ell di r ectl y t o t hes e c ust o mers w i t ho ut a ny c o mm i ssi o n t o t he di st ri b ut or. Thi s bl oc ke d a maj or s e g me nt f or t he s uppl y of t hes e pr o d uct sDGIR v. Bayer (India) Ltd. - RTP E 121 of 1988 deci de d o n 29- 71994 - ( 1995) 81 Tax ma n 178 ( Mag) ( MRTP C).
Restrictions on selling goods outside specified areaCo ndi ti o n i n a n agr ee me nt pr o hi bi ti ng s al e o ut si de all ott e d ar e a i s r est ri cti ve t r a de pr acti ceMaegaware Computers Ltd., I n r e ( 1994) 79 Co mp. Cas. 84.
Appoi nti ng st oc ki st s c o nfi ne d t o oper ati o ns o nl y i n o ne di st ri ct a nd o nl y o ne st oc ki st t o be a ppoi nt e d f or o ne di st ri ct i s r est ri cti ve t r a de pr acti ceDGIR v. All India Organisation of Chemists - ( 1992) 73 Co mp. Cas. 668 ( MRTP C). Terri t or y r est ri cti o ns o n di st ri b ut ors c a n be per m i tt e d t o e ns ur e t hat di s - t ri b ut or has r e q ui si t e i nf r ast r uct ur e, s o t hat he c a n pr ovi de pr oper s er vi ces
a nd f acili ti es.Jai Shree Fibre Products Ltd. - RTP E No. 1274/87 - q uot e d a nd f oll o we d i n DGIR v. Rallis India Ltd. ( 1995) 3 CTJ 151 ( MRTP C).
An agr ee me nt c o nt ai ni ng t he cl a us e t hat t he de al er will c o nce nt r at e o n a parti c ul ar ar e a i s per m i ssi bl e i f t her e i s no pr o hi bi ti o n o n hi mf r o m eff ect - i ng s al es i n ot her ar e asDGIR v. Rajshree Cement ( 1995) 83 Co mp. Cas. 712 ( MRTP C).
I n s o me agr ee me nt s of c o ndi ti o ns of ar e a r est ri cti o ns, MRTP Co mm i ssi o n or der e d t o c ha nge t he cl a us e i n t er ms li ke (a) The de al er will pri maril y pr o mot e s al es i n t he ar e a s peci fi e d or (b ) De al er will c o nce nt r at e hi s eff ort s w i t hi n t he ar e a of - - - di st ri ct t o t he best of hi s a bili t y.
Restriction on dealing in similar goods after end of franchisee agreement - I n Imperial Radio & Gramophone Co. v. Pieco Electronics ( 1996) 20 CL A 61. I n DGIR v. Titan Industries ( 2001) 43 CL A 293 ( MRTP C), t her e was a cl a us e i n agr ee me nt w i t h f r a nc hi s ee t hat t he f r a nc hi s ee will not de al i n pr o d uct s or g oo ds of si mil ar nat ur e f or a peri o d of 3 ye ars f r o m dat e of det er m i nati o n of agr ee me nt w i t hi n r a di us of 5 K ms f r o m s ho wr oo m . It was hel d t hat i t i s Rest ri cti ve Tr a de Pr acti ce ( RTP).
Restrictions on agent permissible, if agreement not on principal to principal basis - It has bee n hel d t hat r est ri cti o ns as t o t erri t or y a nd r est ri cti o n as t o de ali ng i n si mil ar g oo ds c a n be i mpos e d o n age nt, i f t he agr ee me nt w i t h hi mi s not o n ‘ pri nci pal t o pri nci pal’ basi s. I n age nc y agr ee me nt, s uc h r est ri cti o n i s per m i ssi bl e t o av oi d unhe al t hy c o mpeti ti o n bet wee n age nt s. ( MRTP C i n Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. deci de d o n 17- 5- 1978, c o nfi r me d a nd f oll o we d i n DGIR v. Modi Industries Ltd. deci de d o n 3010- 1991 CS May 92 p. 433) al s o f oll o we d i n DG v. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. deci de d by MRTP C o n 9- 5- 91 - CS Oct. 91 p. 854. – Sa me vi e wi n Piramal Health Care Ltd. In re ( 2000) 37 CL A 353 ( MRTP C) * DGIR v. Bombay Paints ( 1991) 71 Co mp. Cas. 428 ( MRTP C).
3.5-1 Cartel is presumed anti-competitive agreement
“ Cart el ” i ncl udes a n ass oci ati o n of pr o d ucers, s ell ers, di st ri b ut ors, t r a ders or s er vi ce pr ovi ders who, by agr ee me nt a mo ngst t he ms el ves, li m i t, c o nt r ol or att e mpt t o c o nt r ol t he pr o d ucti o n, di st ri b uti o n, s al e or pri ce of, or, t r a de i n g oo ds or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces. [ Secti o n 2( c ) of Co mpeti ti o n Act].
The pr ovi si o ns ar e si mil ar t o s ecti o n 33( 1)(d ) of MRTP Act.
Cart el i s al s o c all e d as ‘ k noc k o ut agr ee me nt’.
Cart el i s a ‘ pr es u me d’ a nti - c o mpeti ti ve agr ee me nt.
So me e xa mpl es of c art el ( as deci de d under MRTP Act) ar e as f oll o ws(a)
all t yr e ma n uf act ur ers i ncr e asi ng pri ce uni f or m l y a nd si mul t ane o usl y by mut ual agr ee me nt.
(b ) ass oci ati o n of t r a ns port ers fi xi ng uni f or m pri ce bel o w whi c h no me mber s ho ul d q uot e.
( c ) Vari o us ma n uf act ur ers q uoti ng i de nti c al pri ces - It e vi de nces c art el t ho ug h di r ect pr oof i n s uc h matt ers c a nnot be ma de avail a bl e.
I n UOI v. Hindustan Development Corporation ( 1993) 3 S CC 499 = ( 1994) 2 CTJ 270 ( S C), i t was o bs er ve d‘ Cart el i s a n ass oci ati o n of pr o d ucers who by agr ee me nt a mo ng t he ms el ves att e mpt t o c o nt r ol pr o d ucti o n, s al e a nd pri ces of t he pr o d uct t o o bt ai n a mo nopol y i n a ny parti c ul ar i nd ust r y or c o mmo di t y. It a mo unt s t o unf ai r t r a de pr acti ce whi c h i s not i n p ubli c i nt er est’.
Tho ug h t he wor ds us e d wer e ‘ ass oci ati o n of pr o d ucers ’ , i n Alkali Manu-
facturers Association v. Sinochem International Chemical Co. Ltd. ( 1999) 33 CL A 27 ( MRTP C), i t was ( ri g htl y) hel d t hat a c art el c a n be of vari o us e nt er pri s es a nd c o mpa ni es not necess aril y bei ng t he pr o d ucer of g oo ds. ‘ Cart el s ’ wo ul d e nt ail all s ort s of c o mbi nati o ns whet her by pr o d ucers or ot her w i s e. I n t hi s c as e, i t was hel d t hat o nce prima facie e vi de nce of c art el i s est a bli s he d, i nj uncti o n c a n be gr a nt e d.
Trade Associations asking members not to sale below price fixed by association - Tr a de Ass oci ati o n as ki ng t hei r me mbers not t o s ell bel o w t he r at es a nno unce d by i t, w i t h a t hr e at of e x p ul si o n i n t he e ve nt of no nc o mpli a nce i s a nti - c o mpeti ti veMadras Jewellers and Diamond Merchants’ Association ( 1994) 2 CTJ 198 ( MRTP C).
I n Retail Grain Dealers Association v. Bombay Kirana Colour & Chemical merchants Association ( 1996) 21 CL A 383 ( MRTP C), ci r c ul ar of ass oci ati o n di r ecti ng i t s me mbers t o c oll ect a ddi ti o nal c har ges f or s er vi ce a nd pac ki ng a nd c har ge i nt er est at s peci fi e d r at es f or del aye d pay me nt was hel d t o be a n r est ri cti ve t r a de pr acti ce.
Cartel by bearing manufacturers - I n ABC Bearings Ltd. I n r e ( 2020) 117 t ax ma nn. c o m89 = 161 S CL 383 ( CCI), i t was o bs er ve d t hat ke y c o mpeti t ors i n mar ket di s c uss e d w i t h e ac h ot her t o deci de pri ces t o be q uot e d t o OE M . It was hel d t hat c art el i s est a bli s he d.
I n DGIR v. Modi Alkali ( 2002) 51 CL A 93 ( MRTP C), i t was o bs er ve d, Thr ee ess e nti al i ngr e di e nt s of c art el ar e – ( 1) Pari t y of pri ces ( 2) Agr ee me nt by way of c o ncert e d acti o n s uggesti ng c o ns pi r ac y a nd ( 3) t o gai n mo nopol y or r est ri ct or eli m i nat e c o mpeti ti o n.
I n Sumitomo Corporation In re ( 2001) 42 CL A 12 ( MRTP C), i t was hel d t hat c art ei s ati o ni mpos es unj usti fi e d c ost o n c o ns u mers. Pri ce fi xi ngi s ill e gal per se , t her ef or e, f urt her e nq ui r y o n t he i ss ue of i nt e nt or t he a nti - c o mpeti ti o n eff ect i s not r e q ui r e d.
I n s o me c as es, c har ge of c oll ecti ve acti o n was not hel d t o be pr ove d : (a) So me s mall batt er y ma n uf act ur ers q uoti ng s a me pri ce as t hat of maj or
ma n uf act ur er as t he maj or ma n uf act ur er was ‘ pri ce-l e a der’. ( Ge ner all y, s mall ma n uf act ur ers f oll o w t he pri ces a nno unce d by l ar ge ma n uf act ur er w i t ho ut a ny c oll ecti ve agr ee me nt. I n s uc h c as es, t he l ar ge ma n uf act ur er i s c all e d ‘ pri ce-l e a der’ or ‘ mar ket l e a der’ ). (b ) Ass oci ati o n of t r a ns port ers a nno unci ng ‘ bandh ’ f or t hei r de ma nd of a boli ti o n of oct r oi. It was hel d t hat ‘ bandh’ i s not a t r a de pr acti ce as i t does not r el at e t o c arr yi ng o n t r a de as defi ne d under MRTP Act. A ba ndh i s st oppage of wor k. It c a nnot be r ec ko ne d as t r a de, b usi ness, i nd ust r y or occ upati o n. ( c ) Par all eli s mi n pri ce by i t s el f does not a mo unt t o RTP i n a bs e nce of a ny e vi de nce of c art el.* DGIR v. Coprihans India ( 2001) 45 CL A 9 ( MRTP C) – f oll o w i ngDGIR v. Alkali & Chemical Corporation ( 1993) 1 CTJ 7 ( MRTP C F B).
Essential elements of cartel - I n DGIR v. Modi Alkali ( 2002) 51 CL A 93 ( MRTP C), i t was o bs er ve d, Thr ee ess e nti al i ngr e di e nt s of c art el ar e – ( 1) Pari t y of pri ces ( 2) Agr ee me nt by way of c o ncert e d acti o n s uggesti ng c o ns pi r ac y a nd ( 3) t o gai n mo nopol y or r est ri ct or eli m i nat e c o mpeti ti o n. I n Sumitomo Corporation I n r e ( 2001) 42 CL A 12 ( MRTP C), i t was hel d t hat c art ei s ati o ni mpos es unj usti fi e d c ost o n c o ns u mers. Pri ce fi xi ngi s ill e gal per se , t her ef or e, f urt her e nq ui r y o n t he i ss ue of i nt e nt or t he a nti - c o mpeti ti o n eff ect i s not r e q ui r e d.
Cartel by cement manufacturers - I n Builders Association of India v. Cement Manufacturers’ Association ( 2012) 115 S CL t ax ma nn. c o m 115 ( Mag) ( CCI), i t was f o und t hat t he ce me nt ma n uf act ur ers wer e li m i ti ng pr o d ucti o n a nd s uppli es a nd di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y det er m i ni ng pri ce of ce me nt i n mar ket. Ther e was pri ce par all eli s m whi c h i ndi c at e d c oll usi ve be havi o ur a mo ng ce me nt c o mpa ni es. The ce me nt c o mpa ni es wer e as ke d t o de posi t Rs. 6, 300 cr or es w i t hi n 90 days, a nd ce as e a nd desi st or der was i ss ue d.
I n Alleged Cartelization by Cement Manufacturers, I n r e ( 2012) 116 S CL 648 = 27 t ax ma nn. c o m 210 ( CCI), al s o, i t c har ge of c art eli z ati o n by ce me nt ma n uf act ur ers was up hel d a nd pe nal t y of Rs. 397. 51 cr or es was i mpos e d o n t he c o mpa ny f o und t o be e ngage d i n c art eli z ati o n.
Cartel by trade associations - Tr a de Ass oci ati o n as ki ng t hei r me mbers not t o s ell bel o w t he r at es a nno unce d by i t, w i t h a t hr e at of e x p ul si o n i n t he e ve nt of no n c o mpli a nce i s ‘ c art el’Madras Jewellers and Diamond Merchants’ Association ( 1994) 2 CTJ 198 ( MRTP C).
I n Retail Grain Dealers Association v. Bombay Kirana Colour & Chemical merchants Association ( 1996) 21 CL A 383 ( MRTP C), ci r c ul ar of ass oci ati o n di r ecti ng i t s me mbers t o c oll ect a ddi ti o nal c har ges f or s er vi ce a nd pac ki ng a nd c har ge i nt er est at s peci fi e d r at es f or del aye d pay me nt was hel d t o be a n Rest ri cti ve Tr a de Pr acti ce ( RTP).
Quoting identical rates despite differences in cost of production - I n Bengal Tools Ltd. In re ( 1988) 63 Co mp Cas 468 a nd Excel Industries Ltd.
In re ( 1988) 64 Co mp Cas 531, i t has bee n hel d t hat q uoti ng i de nti c al r at es or pri ces e ve n whe n c ost of pr o d ucti o n vari es i s a pr es u mpti o n i n f av o ur of c art el a nd o n us of di s pr ovi ng c art el s hi ft s t o t he r es po nde nt. - q uot e d a nd f oll o we d i n
Alkali Manufacturers Association v. Sinochem International Chemical Co. Ltd. ( 1999) 33 CL A 27 ( MRTP C).
Mere identical prices not sufficient to conclude cartel - I n Director General (Investigation & Registration) v. Escorts Ltd. ( 2014) 126 S CL 262 = 42 t ax ma nn. c o m 334 ( CAT), i t has bee n hel d t hat mer e i de nti c al pri ces i s not s uffi ci e nt t o c o me t o c o ncl usi o n of c art eli z ati o n w i t h pr e- c o ncert e d m i nd.
Airlines following price bands (bucket seats) is not anti-competitive - Ai rli nes all over t he worl d f oll o w vari o us pri ce ba nds ( b uc ket s yst e m ) wher e s e at s ar e move d f r o ml o wer pri ce ba nd t o hi g her pri ce ba nd. Thi s i s not a nti - c o mpeti ti ve pr acti ce. It i s not c art elDomestic Airlines I n r e ( 2012) 111 S CL 732 = 18 t ax ma nn. c o m 71 ( CCI) a nd ( 2012) 112 S CL 72 = 18 t ax ma nn. c o m 72 ( CCI).
3.5-2 Protecting inefficient industry is not in public interest and in such cases ‘cartel’ is permissible I n Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Mfgrs. Association
2002 AI R S C W 3077 = 145 ELT 241 = ( 2002) 6 S CC 600 = 111 Co mp Cas 617 = AI R 2002 S C 2728 = 2002 CL C 1061 = 38 S CL 1020 ( S C 3 me mber be nc h), i t was hel d t hat MRTP Co mm i ssi o n get s j uri s di cti o n under s ecti o n 37 of MRTP Act t o pass a n or der, whet her i nt eri mor fi nal, o nl y whe n i t c o mes t o c o ncl usi o n t hat i t i s i n p ubli c i nt er est t o do s o. Publi c i nt er est does not necess aril y me a n i nt er est of o nl y t he i nd ust r y. Unl ess a nd until i t i s de mo nst r at e d t hat a n effi ci e nt I ndi a n i nd ust r y i s f aci ng cl os ur e or cl os ur e, MRTP Co mm i ssi o n c a nnot pass a n i nj uncti o n f or i mport s at pr e dat or y pri ces.
I f t he c art el i s s elli ng g oo ds t o I ndi a ( at l o wer pri ces) a nd still ma ki ng pr ofi t, i t will not be i n i nt er est of ge ner al bo dy of c o ns u mers i n I ndi a t o pr e ve nt i mport of s uc h g oo ds. The er a of pr ot ecti o ni s mi s no w c o m i ng t o a n e nd. [ I ndee d t he j udg me nt r efl ect s a ne w a nd f r es h j udi ci al t hi nki ng].
3.6 Agreement which shares the market or source of production or provision of services
Agr ee me nt whi c h s har es t he mar ket or s o ur ce of pr o d ucti o n or pr ovi si o n of s er vi ces by way of all oc ati o n of ge ogr a p hi c al ar e a of mar ket, or t y pe of g oo ds or s er vi ces, or n u mber of c ust o mers i n t he mar ket or a ny ot her si mil ar way, i s pr es u me d t o be a nti - c o mpeti ti ve – Secti o n 3( 3)( c ) of Co m - peti ti o n Act.
Cartel –‘ Cart el’ as di s c uss e d a bove, c a n get c over e d under t hi s cl a us e al s o.
Rs. 1,495/-
COMPETITION LAWS MANUAL WITH CASE LAWS DIGEST
AUTHOR : Taxmann's Editorial Board
PUBLISHER : Taxmann Publications
DATE OF PUBLICATION : November 2025
EDITION : 15th Edition | 2026
ISBN NO : 9789371266598
NO. OF PAGES : 776
BINDING TYPE : PAPERBACK
DESCRIPTION
Competition Laws Manual with Case Laws Digest is a definitive one-stop legal reference to India's competition (antitrust) framework. Fully updated for the Competition (Amendment) Act 2023, it combines the statute, related rules, regulations, and notifications with concise commentary and a curated digest of landmark CCI, NCLAT, and Supreme Court rulings. From cartels and dominance to merger control and penalty mechanics, the Manual demystifies every procedural and substantive facet of competition law.
This book is intended for the following audience:
• Practitioners & Lawyers
• In-house Legal Teams & Compliance Officers
• Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries & Cost Accountants
• Academics & Students
• Policy-makers & Regulators
The Present Publication is the 15th Edition | 2026, amended upto 15th November 2025. This book is authored/edited by Taxmann's Editorial Board with the following noteworthy features:
• [Latest Amendments] Complete text of the Competition Act 2002 as amended by the 2023 Act, with commentary
• [Exhaustive Rules & Regulations] Combination, Lesser Penalty, Settlement & Commitment Regulations guidelines on penalties, etc.
• [Section-wise Analysis] Practical notes on anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance and combinations, plus 'material influence' & 'value-of-transaction' tests
• [Case Laws Digest] Summaries of seminal and recent decisions on cartels, digital-market dominance, merger remedies and penalty jurisprudence
• [Procedural Handbook] Step-by-step guidance on Form I/II/III filings, show-cause and hearing templates
• [Settlement & Commitment Guides] Eligibility, timelines and conditionalities under the 2023 framework
• [Competition Advocacy] Dedicated chapter on CCI's advocacy and advisory mandate
• [Quick Reference Aids] Elaborate indexes, statutory cross-references, tables and flowcharts for instant navigation