VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

COMPETITION LAW: ROLE OF CCI - ACTIVISM OR ENCROACHMENT TO

OTHER SECTORS OF INDIA ECONOMY

Aparna Singh

ABSTRACT

This research paper discusses the role of Competition Commission of India (hereinafter,
Indian market, as it derives its power from the Competition
Act, 2002 which is successor of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP
Act, 1969). The Act has empowered the CCI to check all the agreements, combinations,
acquisition and arrangements into all the sectors which directly or indirectly affects
competition and consumer interests. Section 5 and Section 6 puts threshold limits in order to
come under the purview of CCI, while Section 6 lays mandatory requirement of serving notice
with fee of their intention before executing agreements. Thus role of CCI has actively increased
their area to other sectors such as telecom, aviation, transportation etc., which has increased
the permission seeking load for all the parties and sometimes causes unnecessary delay in
executing agreements. On other hand it has controlled unfair practices such as exclusive
agreements, cartels, etc., which has brought a healthy and fair competition in all the sectors
giving equal opportunity to all the players as well consumers are getting quality products and
services at best reasonable prices or fairs.

Keywords: Competition Act, Competition Commission, India, Relevant Market.

INTRODUCTION

In the world of innovations, inventions and advancement, where India is progressing in each
sector by moving ahead from other developing countries and matching pace with the other
developed nations. Our earlier enactment i.e. MRTP Act, 1969 was basically dealing with areas
i.e. restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice efficiently, the authority under this Act
was empowered to investigate and punish but soon after the establishment of Consumer Courts
in 1986, it led to overlapping of matters or cases leading to huge numbers of litigations on
similar grounds leading to multiplicity of cases along with more appeals to Supreme Court,
over burdening each level of courts. The year 1991 is known by globalisation and liberalisation
of Indian economy through which a new area has been discovered i.e. merger & acquisition,

* Aparna Singh, Teaching Associate, Faculty of Juridical Science, Rama University, Kanpur.

310
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

now the working area of Indian industries is not limited to India but across the world, foreign

which demanded immediate attention of government in order to prevent monopoly,

exploitation of consumers. Therefore the Government has two options, first was to amend
MRTP Act, 1969 thoroughly including extra-territorial jurisdiction of appropriate authority or
to enact new legislation with new rules, regulation, widening the power of appropriate
authority, this leads to the decision that MRTP Act, 1969 shall be abolished and new enactment
will be brought to fight against unfair trade practises as well strengthening Indian economy by
performing their tasks impartially and efficiently. Thus government of India with the
suggestions of Raghavan committee and deliberation of standing committee on finance has
formulated a constructive law i.e. Competition Act, 2002. After the enactment of this Act
various statutory authority, government departments, is entering into international markets or
merging with each other in order to enhance their profits market as well contributing into the
Indian economy, as per the situations favourable to Indian markets.

On the other hand in order to check these activities, central government has established CCI in
October, 2003 preceding Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.1 The
Competition Act, 2002 empowers the authority to check or keep eye on all such contracts
especially between big business houses in order to ensure healthy competition in Indian market,
fair practises and eliminate anti-competitive trades, cartel or any other activities which has
adverse effect on competition in markets, the Act further enables the CCI to punish the
wrongdoer either imprisonment or fine or both.

REPORT OF RAGHAVAN COMMITTEE

This committee was set-up by Central government to give their suggestions in order to
formulate new laws on competition law as well which shall stand with the new changing era.
The committee by submitting its report to government has suggested following things:

1. Setting up of new statutory authority2 with powers of investigation, prosecution, punishment

and even with the authority to pass interim or interlocutory orders during the pendency of
matter before them.

1
Competition regulatory Authority of India, Competition Commission of India: CCI and Competition Advocacy,
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in (last visited on Dec. 15, 2016).
2
Supra note 1.

311
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

2. This authority should have the power to check beyond the boundaries of India i.e. extra-
territorial, means any two parties entering into any contract which runs business in India as
well, may inquire into such contracts whether such contracts will affect Indian market,
consumers or not, may pass necessary order which shall be binding on those two companies if
they surely want to run their businesses into Indian markets.

3. The authority should be an autonomous body, means independent to work, and shall be
answerable to central government. The body shall be consist of experienced persons 3 having
efficient knowledge of market and other administrative work, shall be bound to observe rule of
law and principle of natural justice, in 2017 a tribunal referred to as Competition Appellate
Tribunal (COMPAT) was established.

4. Another view of the committee in order to suggest for the establishment was that it will
reduce the burden of judiciary, as the judges are not well versed in all the fields and this being
a new area, the authority will work as helping hand to judiciary by providing advice if adhered
by judiciary.

SECTOR REGULATOR AND CCI

The role of CCI is nowhere mentioned under the Competition Act. The CCI has jurisdiction
over the areas of Indian sectors either government, private or semi in nature, if any such
undertaking enters into the agreement or contract which will be going to affect Indian market
or consumers is bound the get prior sanctions from the CCI. On the other hand, if CCI founds
anything malafide it may reject the agreement or contract by assigning reasons to the parties
and the decision shall be final. In case there is a conflict each sector before entering into
contract get scrutinise by CCI, they can either pass or reject the new amalgamation or mergers
because on their view point it is not fruitful for Indian market, as well it add unnecessary delays
due to lengthy procedures in executing the contracts.

CIVIL AVIATION SECTOR

Role of Foreign Direct Investment in India

way, as it was a beneficial deal for the Indian government because it increased foreign currency,

3
The Competition Act, 2002, §16(1).

312
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

employment opportunity and development in inter-linked sectors which lead to Gross

other hand, the laws regarding FDI were liberalised so as to attract more investors, sectoral
caps were reduced and few sectors were removed from government route and transferred to
automatic route.4

The Ministry of Commerce and Industry administers two departments, the Department of
Commerce and the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion. Department of Industrial
Policy and
They release the FDI policy notification. This department is responsible for the overall
industrial policy and also responsible for increasing facilitating and maintaining the FDI flows
to the country.5

Market Size and Investment in Indian Civil Aviation Industry

Indian Civil aviation market is the 9th largest civil aviation market, which aims to be the 3rd
largest aviation market by 2020. It has carried almost 163 million passengers in 2013 estimated
to reach a threshold of 60 million international passengers by 2017. The total passengers carried
in 2013 is 163 million while having a target of 60 million international passengers by 2017 and
it aims to be the 3rd largest aviation market by 2020.6 In 2014, the industry has saw entry of
five new players. These new players are:

1. Jet Etihad deal has been finalized (FDI)

2. Tata-Singapore Airlines Ltd. - Vistara

3. Air Costa (Part of LEPL Group)

4. Tata-Air Asia Ltd.

5. Air Pegasus Ltd.

The DIPP has now permitted 49% on the automatic route which don't require any prior
government approval.

4
Ministry of Civil Aviation, http://www.civilaviation.gov.in html (last visited on Dec. 10, 2016).
5
DIPP, Review of the policy on Foreign Direct Investment in the Civil Aviation sector,
http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Notes/pn6_2012.pdf (last visited on Dec. 12, 2016).
6
Bhumesh Verma, India: FDI in Civil Aviation Sector, http://www.mondaq.com (last visited on Dec. 16, 2016).

313
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

CONCEPT OF RELEVANT MARKET

The definition of relevant market is defined under various statutes of different countries
because in each case market is different so it is not possible for legislation to define a particular
market. Competition law describes it as the market which may be determined by the
Commission with reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market
or with reference to both the markets.

Thus, this definition gives a wide area for CCI to decide whether a particular agreement under
a particular market is relevant and friendly to others competitors. In the case of Belaire Owner's
Association v. DLF Limited and Others,7 CCI pronounced its order which created ripples in
the competition jurisprudence; as the said order, rightly asserted that the

player and thus every time CCI pronounces its order, it needs to interpret the concept of

Generally the CCI works at industrial area or buildings or flats prices and determines their
agreements as valid or void according to relevant market and competition law policies, but for
the first time in the history of CCI, it intervened in the project of civil aviation sector where
two entities one from India and another from UAE were getting into airline project. This
project does not require permission from CCI only to start its project but has to seek
permissions from different statutory departments which in itself were a complex task.

SECTION 3: ANTI - COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS AND COMPETITION LAW

any agreement in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of

goods and or provisions of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse

In the case of Mr. Ramakant Kini v. Dr. L.H. Hiranandani Hospital, Powai, Mumbai,8 says
that any agreements in respect of services which is or likely to cause an appreciable adverse

7
2011 Comp LR 239 (CCI).
8
Case no. 39 of 2012.

314
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

effect on competition in India shall be void, it will be duty of CCI to check such commercial
agreements.

Appreciable adverse effect is not defined by the statute and it is left over the CCI and court that
to infer from terms and conditions of agreements whether it falls under AAE. But the statute
has given a list of factors under Section 19 (3) through which CCI may decide whether an
agreement has AAE or not, such as creation of barriers for new entries, driving out old ones,
creating of hindrances by any other way. Sometimes CCI may apply rule of reasons or per se
rule to analyse any agreements. CCI even looks agreements on the basis of relevant market
under which it has be executed. The CCI under Section 19(4) has the power to check the
position of player in a market in order to decide whether the agreement entered by such player
will create any anti-activity or it will be a good deal. It is a long list of factors which a CCI may
look into such as market share, prices, economic power of enterprise, dependence of consumers
on the services of such enterprise etc. Once the agreement reaches to the door of CCI for its
scrutiny, the director general investigates the matter under various provisions of competition
law along with other necessary factors which he thinks to be looked into so that healthy
competition remain in the Indian market as well as enterprises also not suffer from any losses.

CASE STUDY: JET- ETIHAD AIRLINE

Government of India allowed FDI into civil aviation sector up to 49% sectoral cap. This
infusion of foreign direct investment in the Indian aviation sector will result in economies of
scale, growth in traffic at Indian airports and will create job opportunities across the aviation
and tourism sectors. It will greatly benefit all our stakeholders whilst significantly benefitting
our guests who will now have access to a more expanded global network, enhanced
connectivity for tourists, business travellers and the wider travelling public. The CCI comes
into picture to check whether this agreement will have any adverse impact on Indian airline
market, it will check their agreements, policies and other different angles such as prices,
facilities, services, impact on existing airlines and competition. After all due diligence and
proper care caution each steps of Jet Airways and Etihad Airline agreements/terms &
conditions result was affirmative and CCI granted permission to complete the project. This
project was landmark decision in the history of civil aviation as well as CCI.

The proposal got approved by the Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Foreign
Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) and Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA).

315
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

Thereafter the Investment Agreement, Shareholders Agreement and a Commercial Co-

operation Agreement between Jet and Etihad were submitted to CCI for its approval.

Parties to the Combination

First Party: Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (Jet)

Second Party: Etihad Airways PJSC (Etihad)

1. The government of India liberalised its FDI Policy and set a 49% cap for foreign investments
in Civil Aviation Sector in India.

2. In 2013, Etihad, a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) & wholly
owned by the government, a national airline of UAE, proposed to acquire 24% in Jet, a listed
company incorporated in India.

3. Jet, a listed company incorporated in 1992 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
on the similar lines, is primarily engaged in the business of providing low cost and full service
scheduled air passenger transport services to/from India along with cargo, maintenance, repair
& overhaul services and ground handling services.

4. On 1st May 2013, the CCI received a notice under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the
Competition Act, 20029 given by Etihad and Jet.

5. In terms of Regulation 14,10 11

, vide letter dated 9th May 2013,
the Parties were required to remove certain defects and provide information/documents by 28th
May 2013. After seeking extension of time, the Parties filed their response on 3rd June 2013.

6. In terms of sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 19 of the Combination Regulations,12 Air India

was required to furnish its views/comments on the proposed combination by 29th October 2013.
After seeking extension of time twice, Air India furnished its response on 8th November 2013,
broadly raising two main concerns viz. impact of the alliance on the competitive landscape of

9
The Competition Act, 2002, §6(1) & §6(2).
10
The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to
combinations) Regulations, 2011, says to serve notice with proper fee and under format.
11
The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to transaction of business relating to combination)
Regulation, 2011, reg. 14 says CCI may invalidate any notice which is not in conformity with combination
regulation.
12
The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to transaction of business relating to combination)
Regulation, 2011, reg. 19.cl. 3 says, Where the Commission deems it necessary; it may call for information from
any other enterprise while inquiring as to whether a combination has caused or is likely to cause an appreciable
adverse effect on competition in India.

316
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

the India-Abu Dhabi route and impact of the alliance on Indian aviation and Air India. These
concerns have been considered and addressed in the assessment of the combination.

Issue

Whether the combination between Jet Airways and Etihad Airlines has appreciable adverse
effect on competition in India?

In order to determine this combination has any adverse effect or not, firstly CCI has to
determine the relevant market under which it will look that such combination will bring
positive or negative impact on market.

Relevant Market: A relevant market in the present project was considered to be the market of
international passenger air transport based on the point of origin or point of destination
13

Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition: As now that the relevant market was defined, CCI
started its analysis i.e. whether or not there would be any AAEC pertaining to such routes. CCI
stressed upon the relevancy of trans-boundary competition, as routes were international, while
ascertaining AAEC through this proposed combination.

It was observed that there were 38 routes to/from India to other destinations where Etihad and
Jet fly and there was at least one competitor on each of such route. Except 7 destinations, where
Jet and Etihad had a combined share of more than 50 %, rest all destinations had less combined
share. Also of these 7 destinations, on 3 routes, the share of one was more than 50 percent and
of the other less than 5 percent. Thus, post transaction change in the market share was observed,
not to marginally alter the competition dynamics.

However, CCI observed that when considering the network effects, the assessment must go
beyond the O&D pairs and consider potential network effects of the proposed combination.
Competition was observed to be increasing among systems rather than on point to point O&D
pairs. Therefore, high market shares of Jet and Etihad in their respective hubs, do not imply
lack of competition.14

13
Report of the ECA Air Traffic Working Group- Mergers and Alliances in Civil Aviation.
14
Since the relevant market should be defined on a non-directional basis, a Delhi (DEL) Chicago (ORD), Chicago-
Delhi will be one relevant market O&D pair DEL-ORD.

317
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

Issue

Whether CCI has Jurisdiction on Civil Aviation Sector or Not?

Section 5 of Competition Act15 says that in order to come under the purview of CCI, there is
certain threshold limits for both the acquirer and other party. It means if any party is not
crossing or touching the threshold of Section 5 need not to serve or inform CCI, they are free
to enter into agreements. The threshold has been amending from time to time as to cover all
the big enterprises and exempting small or growing industries to freely enter into combinations.

Section 5 serve two purposes, first, by putting threshold limits involving both the parties with
their individual assets as well joined assets to inform CCI of their combination so as know the
consumers as well their self-interest to be protected, while other purpose is to promote small
or growing industries or sectors to enter into such combinations in order to expand their market
as well contribute to Indian economy.

Section 6 of Competition Act16 talks about that no person or enterprise shall enter into a
combination which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition
within the relevant market in India and if entered such a combination shall be void. The parties
entering into such combinations must serve prior notice to CCI of their intention with all
necessary and relevant information within 30 days so as to enable the CCI either to grant
permission or not.

Thus these sections empowers the CCI to have jurisdiction on every agreements, merger or
arrangements which by their result will bring some change in the Indian market, here
irrespective the sector is civil aviation, but such combination will affect the Indian market,
consumers interest as well as existing other airline companies business. Through such
combination two different countries were going to participate along with their own area of
interest and profit, therefore to check such combo CCI has to come into picture along with
other necessary authorities.

15
The Competition Act, 2002, §5.
16
The Competition Act, 2002, §6.

318
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

Judgement

The views expressed by the members of CCI, some of in the favour of such combination while
others were in against as per them such combination will lead to adverse effect on market and
will hamper the healthy competition between airlines.

Considering the facts on record and the details provided in the notice given under Sub-Section
(2) of Section 6 of the Act and the relevant factors mentioned in Sub-Section (4) of Section 20
of the Act,17 CCI observed that airlines alliance results in improving and expanding services
and thereby inducing competition in that sector. It also postulated that the proposed
combination may pave way for other similar combinations by other stakeholders and thereby
rising competition in the sector. CCI also considered the importance of the proposed equity
infusion, as Jet has been facing certain financial crisis, therefore such combination would allow
Jet to continue to compete effectively in the relevant market in India and internationally.
Therefore in the light of the abovementioned reasoning and observations, CCI concluded that
the proposed combination is not likely to have AAEC in India and therefore the combination
was approved with a caution that the approval is based on the information/details as provided
by the parties and in case of any modifications later on, fresh approval should be sought. Also,
it was incumbent upon the parties to ensure that this ex-ante approval does not lead to ex-post
violation of the provision of the Act. Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the same
under Sub-Section (1) of Section 31 of the Act.18 This approval however, shall have no bearing
on proceedings under Section 43A of the Act.19

BANKING SECTOR

Banking is the one of major sector of Indian economy that any merger or acquisition will affect
the consumers as well other governmental and private banks interest, thus CCI comes into the
picture to check whether by such acquisition the Indian banking market will get affected or not,
will any kind of abuse of dominance will lead or create monopoly. As per the Section 6 of the
Competition Act, necessary party is required to serve notice with all necessary details to the

17
The Competition Act, 2002, §20(4) contains sub clauses (a) to (n) as a factors taken into consideration by CCI
before granting approval to combination.
18
The Competition Act, 2002, §31(1) Where the Commission is of the opinion that any combination does not,
or is not likely to, have an appreciable adverse effect on competition, it shall, by order; approve that
combination including the combination in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-section (2) of
section 6.
19
The Competition Act, 2002, §43A.

319
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

CCI of any such combination within 30 days of their agreement, if they meet the threshold
limits given under Section 5 of the Act. Then under the same Act by Section 19 CCI will look
into the matter, will decide to issue necessary orders either allowing such combination or
rejecting it, parties are allow to give sufficient opportunities to defend their case and then under
Section 31 CCI passes its final decision which shall be binding upon the parties.

IndusInd Bank Case Study20

1. IndusInd Bank is an Indian bank established under the Banking Regulation, currently having
727 across the world.21

2. Bank is acquiring the diamond and jewellery finance business of Royal Bank of Scotland,
having approval from the RBI to establish branch office in India.

3. The issue before CCI was to determine the relevant market in the area of gem and diamond
jewellery financing business.

4. CCI while determining the relevant market, acquirer is purchasing only the banking portfolio
of the customers engaged in gem and jewellery business. These facts indicate that the said
bouquet of banking services to the customers engaged in gem and jewellery business provided
on a standalone basis could form a separate relevant product market. Since small and medium
enterprises are dependent on local banks for availing banking services, the relevant geographic
market for the proposed combination would be considered as a local market.

5. As per the information available on record, as regards the average distance travelled by the
gems and jewellery customers of the Parties for availing the said services from the respective
branches of both the acquirer and the seller (RBS) is about (15-20) kilometres.

6. The primary service area of the competitors of the Parties may also have a similar radius of
about (15-20) kilometres.

20
IndusInd Bank acquired diamond jewelry financing business of Royal Bank of Scotland.
21
In July 2016, CCI had revised its combination regulations as part of efforts to make the process simpler and
more transparent. According to the regulator, the amendments provide greater clarity and certainty with respect
to Merger and Acquisition (M&A) filings and will help in avoiding undue delays in the approval process. Among
the combination decisions given this year are approval of IndusInd Bank's acquisition of gem and jewellery
portfolio of Royal Bank of Scotland: Daily News and Analysis, www.dnaindia.com (last visited on Dec. 15, 2016).

320
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

IRON AND STEEL SECTOR

Iron and steel is one of major sector of Indian economy, by the end of 2016 India is expected
to become the second largest producer of steel in the world economy. This sector has started
by raw materials of domestic iron and steel available to now one of the modern and highly
roduction grew by 9.4 percent
year-on-year to 8.1 million tonnes in August 2016. During April-August 2016, crude steel
production in the country grew by 7 percent year-on-year to 39.98 million tonnes.

Over April-August 2016, steel imports fell 34.5 percent year-on-year to 3.01 million tonnes,
while steel exports rose 23.6 percent year-on-year to 2.38 million tonnes. Steel consumption in
the country is expected to grow 5.3 percent year-on-year to 85.8 million tonnes during financial
year 2016-17, led by growth in the construction and capital goods sector.22

On the other hand, investment under steel industry and its associated mining and metallurgy
sectors have seen a number of major investments and developments in the recent past.
According to the data released by DIPP, the Indian metallurgical industries attracted FDI to the
tune of US$ 8.89 billion, respectively, in the period April 2000 - March 2016.23

SAIL Case Study

This was another sector where the two parties were entering into agreement relating to supply
of steel; CCI has to look into the matter whether such agreement is within the provisions of
competition law because as per the Act there should not be any monopoly, unfair trade, cartels
or exclusive agreement neither for supply nor for distribution.

1. Under this case, Indian Railway has entered into exclusive agreement 24 with Steel Authority

2. Another party i.e. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. complained under Section 1925 r/w 26 (1)26 of
this Act that Indian railway and SAIL has entered into exclusive agreement of supplying rails,

22
Steel industry in India: Report of India Brand Equity Foundation, www.ibef.org (last visited on Dec. 12, 2016).
23
Id.
24
The Competition Act, 2002, §3(4).
25
The Competition Act, 2002, §19.
26
The Competition Act, 2002, §26.

321
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

means it was breach of fair competition that without issuing advertisement or calling for tender,
Indian Railway has given its tender to SAIL which is a competitor.

3. CCI without giving opportunity to SAIL ordered for investigation.

4. SAIL nocked the doors of COMPAT, the tribunal find such order of investigation as
irrational and ordered the DG to stop investigation. Therefore CCI approached the Supreme
Court to gives its final say.

Judgement

The Supreme Court by giving its judgement made very clear that the CCI is a statutory body
having autonomous existence, but the powers have to be exercised with limitation and by
observing rule of law and principle of natural justice. It stopped the CCI from encroaching their
shoes into every field just being they were appointed as regulatory body to check and stop
unfair trade practises and protecting the interest of consumers. It also postulates the greater
responsibility of maintaining confidentiality by CCI as provided under Section 57 27 of the
Competition Act, 2002. It further made clear that the powers given to them is of high spirit
which gives more responsibility, balancing between consumers, market, parties as well
observing the basic principle of laws and regulation, deriving its origin from The Constitution
of India.28

PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR

global pharmaceutical industry in value terms and 10% in the volume terms. The IPM is valued
at Rs 860 billion for the year ending March 2015. The growth in 2015 stood at 12.9%. Owing
to robust historical growth and future prospects, many MNC companies have active presence
in the Indian pharma space.29 The IPM is highly fragmented with about 24,000 players (330 in
the organised sector). The top ten companies including domestic and MNC make up for more

27
The Competition Act, 2002, §57, Restriction on disclosure of information, No information relating to any
enterprise, being information which has been obtained by or on behalf of (the Commission or the Appellate
Tribunal) for the purposes of this Act, shall, without the previous permission in writing of the enterprise, be
disclosed otherwise.
28
Sunder Ramanathan, SAIL v. Competition Commission of India: Supreme Court Gets It Rights!
http://competitionlawyer.blogspot.in. (last visited on Dec. 15, 2016).
29
Pharmaceutical sector Analysis Report, https://www.equitymaster.com. (last visited on Dec. 10, 2017).

322
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

than a one-third of the market. The market is dominated majorly by branded generics, which
constitutes nearly 70% to 80% of market.30

OTHER SECTORS

The power of CCI to anti-market practise has widened its power and allows him to check every
sector directly or indirectly coming under market provision along with consumer interest is
inter-connected. Therefore every combination from any sector is bound to inform CCI about
its intention within 30 days with detailed information. CCI may call for further information as
well issue direction for the necessary amendments in their proposed agreements under Section
31 clause (3) - (10) of Competition Act, 2002.31 Some other sectors are:

1. Pharmaceutical Sector: Pfizer and Vidhi and their agreement in which Vidhi is a limited
partnership and yet not started its operation into the Indian market, whereas Pfizer engaged in
manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products in India. Acquirer
(Vidhi) has served notice under Section 6(2) as it is falling under the threshold limit of Sec.5.
Thus considering the elements of Section 20, CCI under Section 31 approved the above
combination.32

2. Retail Sector: The parties are Future Retail limited and Bharti Retail limited, former is
public listed company while later is public unlisted company have jointly served notice with
necessary details of their deal to CCI. Future group operating around 370 retail stores at various
locations in India under different formats such as hypermarket, supermarket and home
segments and under different brand names including Big Bazaar, FBB, Food Bazaar, Foodhall,
Home Town, and e-Zone. The retail business of FRL inter-alia includes retail operations and
retail infrastructure operations, similarly, Bharti Group, operates around 200 retail stores at
various locations in India. The retail business of BRL inter-alia includes the retail operations
and the retail infrastructure operations.

3. The Parties have submitted that the relevant market should be considered as overall market
for retail as the relevant product market and relevant geographic market may be defined as the
whole of India. Thus the CCI has approved the said combination as they found that in the

30
Id.
31
The Competition Act, 2002, §31.
32
Combination Registration No.C-2015/10/331, http://www.cci.gov.in (last visited on Dec. 14, 2016).

323
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

relevant market enough competitors are available which will control prices as well any anti-
competitive agreements if any.33

4. Transportation Sector: Uber Group v. Meru Travel Solution, under this case Meru has
filed a complaint under Section 19(1) (a)34 against Uber group another radio taxi service
provider, alleging for predatory pricing35 that is offering service at highly low prices with
discounts in order to remove the remaining competitors from the taxi service market, which
will lead to dominant position under Section 4 of this Act which is anti-competitive. The CCI
did not find prima facie any such practise by Uber and hence close the investigation under
Section 26(2).36 On an appeal to tribunal, ordered investigation to director general. The analysis
of COMPAT was based on that CCI did not went into proper investigation and limited the
relevant market up to Delhi only, which cannot be appropriate to determine that Uber is
violating anti-competitive. The matter is still pending before Supreme Court.37

CONCLUSION

Competition law can be called as Magna Carta for the activities of enterprises. With the growth
of Indian market and due to complex activities such as Merger, Acquisition, Compromise,
Amalgamation, which are very fruitful for the growth of an industry or company but at the
same time it brings anti-practices such as cartel, predatory pricing, exclusive agreements for
supply and distribution etc., thus there was a need of some strong laws and their execution in
order to maintain healthy market and to protect interest of consumers. The central Government
after repealing MRTP Act 1969, introduced Competition Act, 2002 with CCI and COMPAT
as adjudicatory and judicial body. The Act prescribes that the commission in discharge of its
functions shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.38

33
Combination Registration No. C-2015/05/281, http://www.cci.gov.in. (last visited on Dec. 14, 2016).
34
The Competition Act, 2002, §19(1): The Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the
provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its own motion or on
- (a) receipt of any information, in such manner and accompanied by such fee as may be determined by
regulations, from any person, consumer or their association or trade association.
35
The Competition Act, 2002, §4, explanation, (b)
services, at a. price which is below the cost, as may be determined by regulations, of production of the goods or
provision of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the competitors.
36
The Competition Act,2002, §26(2) of the Act states that when on receipt of information under Section 19, the
CCI forms an opinion that no prima facie case exists, it shall close the matter and pass such orders as it may
deem fit.
37
Case No. 96 of 2015. http://www.cci.gov.in (last visited on Dec. 13, 2016).
38
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., 1993 3 SC 259.

324
VOLUME I, ISSUE 3 | ISSN: 2456-3595 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL INSIGHT

CCI has played very significant role in putting bar on anti-competitive practices, due to its
detail investigation, procedure and punishment powers every entity before entering into any
combination make their agreements or deed according to Indian market as well avoiding anti-
practises. The provisions of Competition Act, 2002, are very balanced and strict as at the initial
stage CCI will look whether the proposed combination have any appreciable adverse effect in
the market or not. As part of duty CCI ensure that particular combination must have enough
competitors and will not lead to create monopoly or dominance in the market.

Thus, where the world is growing at a very fast speed there is need of making laws liberal or
the authorities to have a positive view before reaching to any conclusion. Parties should be
given enough opportunities to mask representations, while the parties are bound to furnish
documents and inform all necessary changes to relevant authorities from time to time so that
their work and faith of authorities do not break. By allowing such combination CCI has proved
that India is ready for new and healthy deals which will increase GDP and beneficial for
consumers. Now citizens of both the countries can travel easily along with other connecting
countries, while existing competitors will ensure that such combination cannot affect market
in any way, along with it has opened way to other airline services to enter into such
combinations. It is not beneficial to them only but helps the overall growth of economy making

**********

325