a.

Whether NFTC’s jurisdiction supersedes that of the TVA and the NFTC erred by
passing its final order when the matter was sub-judice before the TVA?

1. The NFTC was well within its jurisdiction to hear and pass judgement on case 05 of 2022
and case 06 of 2022.
CASE 05 of 2022 EITRI vs NFTC

2. EITRI is an established player in the electric car manufacturing industry with 51% based
on the value of the sale. ULTRON on the other hand is the only 8G service provider in
Nidavellir.1
3. EITRI entered into an agreement with ULTRON to provide 8G frequency network
service to them. On the terms that ULTRON would not engage in a similar business
relationship to provide the network services to a compare lable remote charging facility
in other electric cars.
4. On 15 December 2021, the NFTC received anonymous information. The NFTC after
examining the facts and circumstances, passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Act
and directed the Director General (“DG”) to initiate an investigation into issues of
exclusive arrangement between Eitri and Ultron and abuse of dominant position by Eitri
in Case No. 05 of 20222 .
5. This was an exclusive agreement between both of them limiting the supply of services in
a manner. It was also limiting and preventing the supply of services to the competitors
leading to the limitation of technical development of the competitors.
6. The exclusive agreement of EITRI and ULTRON falls is voilating sec 3 and 4 of the
competition act 2002.
7. EITRI claims that case 05 of 2022 falls into the jurisdiction of TVA but according to sec
14 (A) of the TVA act (TRAI).
8. It says that any matter relating to Monopolistic Trade Practice, Restrictive Trade Practice
and Unfair Trade Practice falls into the jurisdiction of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade

1
Moot Prop ¶ 3
2
Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) ... on 23 July, 2020
 Practices Commission which was established under subsection 1 of sec 5 of the
monopolies and restrictive trade practices act 1969.
9. But in the year 2009, the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act was repealed and
was succeeded by the competition act 2002 (NARA 2002)
10. The Competition Commission or NFTC is a commission established under sec 7 of the
Competition Act or the NARA 2002.
11. The exclusive agreement violates sec 3 and sec 4 of the NARA 2002 (competition act
2002)3.
12. THUS, case 5 of 2022 is well within the jurisdiction of NFTC or the competition
commission4.
CASE 06 of 2022 JV vs NFTC

13. On 3rd December 2021, EITRI filed a complaint in the TVA alleging that JV is offering
charging facilities with excess to 8G UHF without having a valid licence.5 
THIS CASE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE TVA.
14. Meanwhile, in an investigation of the case, 05 of 2022 (EITRI vs NFTC) conducted by
the DG of the NFTC various evidence were collected indicating serious violation of the
NARA act by JV.
The evidence collected was:-
15. DG gathered certain material by way of e-mail chains which indicated that the KMP of
the JV were exchanging information on manufacture, research and development, and
distribution of electric cars related to Odin, Hela and Fury; beyond the purview of the
JV.6
16. The DG observed that the evidence so collected indicated collusion among Odin, Hela
and Fury to counter Eitri’s 8G UHF charging technology.

3
Excel Crop Care Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India on 8 May, 2017
4
Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) ... on 23 July, 2020
5
Moot Prop ¶ 16
6
Moot Prop ¶ 20
 17. The DG found that the representatives of the JV met on several occasions and exchanged
commercially sensitive information, such as deciding tender bids for acquiring raw
material etc., beyond that which pertained solely to the functioning of the JV. 
18. The material indicated that these three car manufacturers might have indulged in price
manipulation through concerted action under the garb of the JV. The DG found evidence
in the form of email correspondences, and WhatsApp messages shared among executives
of Odin, Hela and Fury. 
19. These acts fall well within the Ambit of ‘Restrictive Trade Practices’ as per the
monopolies and restrictive trade practices act 1969 and also violated sec 3 (d) of the
NARA act7.
20. Since these cases were related to the matters of ‘Restrictive Trade Practices’ which are
beyond the jurisdiction of TVA as per sec 14 (A) of the TRAI act.
21. It says that any matter relating to Monopolistic Trade Practice, Restrictive Trade Practice
and Unfair Trade Practice falls into the jurisdiction of Monopolies And Restrictive Trade
Practices Commission which was established under subsection 1 of sec 5 of the
monopolies and restrictive trade practices act 1969.
22. But in the year 2009, the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act was repealed and
was succeeded by the competition act 2002 (NARA 2002).
23. The Competition Commission or NFTC is a commission established under sec 7 of the
Competition Act, 2002. Hence NFTC took a suo moto and took the case which was
already falling into their jurisdiction.

7
Excel Crop Care Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India on 8 May, 2017