CHAPTER

12 The Competition Act,2002

Principle: Commercium jure gentium commune esse debet et non in

monopolium et
privatum paucorum quaestum convertuendum.

Commerce, by the law of the nations, ought to be common, and not

perverted
to monopolyand the private profit of a few.

CHAPTER OUTLINE
Introductionand Interpretation Competion Commission ofIndia
MRTP versus Competition
Case Study: SAIL In Troubled Waters
Scopeof Competition Act, 2002 Legal Luminary: Arijit Pasayat
Prohibition of Certain
Agreements,
Abuseof Dominant Position, and
Regulation of Combinations

12.1 INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATION

An Act to provide, viewof the economic development ofthe country, for the establishment
keeping in

ofa adverse effect on competition,to promote and sustain

Commission to prevent practices having
in markets, to protect the interests of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carred
competition
on by in markets,inIndia, andfor matters connected therewith or incidental thereto
other participants
-The Competition Act, 2002, Opening paragraph

The Act that is

being studied is refered to with its
complete title as the Competition Act,
20
(No. 12 of 2003) as amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act 2007.This Act, when t
came into effect, repealed its predecessor, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Atu
1969,better known by its acronym MRTP (Fig. 12.1). The fourobjectives etiton
of the Competto
Act have been quoted above earlie, but bear
repeating They work on the premise of

1. Establishment of a commission prevent adverse effect on

to competition
2. Promotion and sustenancecompetition in the market
3. Protection of consumers' interests
4. Freedom of trade
 The Competition Act, 2002 349

e 121Acomparison
MRTP Act 1969
between MATP Act and
CompetitionAct

CompetitionAct, 2002
and
reactive
Peretms rgid Post-reforms: simple and transparent
ministrative
eand financial autonomy for the
Competition commission is autonomous

and undefñned
YNES ae implicit Offences are well deñned
nto
Noar tY inquue foregin cartels
Regulation isin place

ln s
today business parlance, the goal of the Act was to create a
level-playing feld
to all the

competitors
the m
market. The
Competition Commission of India was established by the
Act to pomote its objectives.

12.2
MRTPvs COMPETITION

The MRTP Act, 1969 givesa clear idea of how trade and commerce was conducted in the
era of command economy, which excelled in
putting in place, controls ratherthan allowing
the growth of industry and motivating business. The Act was an instrument that served the
objectives
of the icense raj. The government would assess and grant icenses for industry, thus

controlling production. Another fallout was that the license holders quickly found out ways
to create cartels and monopolies and hence dominated the domestic market.

In 1999, the world economic order had changed and India's own reforms had ushered in
free-market reforms which ensured that rolling back to the earlier system was unthinkable.
MRTP had be changed because did not serve the goalsof the new economic order. It
to it

was also discovered that our own Constitutionin Articles 38 and 39,which come under the
Directive Principles, were being read in the new ight:

1. That the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so
distributed as to best subserve the common good
2. That the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentrationof wealth
and means of production to the common detriment

A high-level committee under the chairmanship of Raghavan was set up to examine

V.S.

in 2002 and was

and suggestions for a new
give
law. Consequenty, the law was enacted
as the Competition Act, 2002.
promulgated in January 2003

12.3
SCOPE OF COMPETITION ACT, 2002

he marketplace made up of sellers and buyers; each seller competes to win asmany buyers
is

aspossible over his nearest and adopts strategies to outsmart them the rival s).However,
rival

One seller wants to come out on top of everyone else so that he completely dominates the
of and services. However,
narket and wants to achieve the position of a single supplier goods
ne free-marketeconomy has a fundamental principle of competition: free and fair. market A
stimulates productivity and, innovation,improves the
cconomy based on such a principle
350 Legal Aspects of Business

P P
MR, MC MR, MC LRMC

-- LRAC

Monopoly Mononoly
profits profits

Social

Socia Cost
CoSt
LRAC

LRMC
MR
D AR MR D AR
Qm
Natural monopoly
(flat-bottomed LRAC curve)
Quantity
m
Normal monopoly(U-shaped
LRAC curve
Quanüty

Figure 12.1 Monopoly structure and its social cost

and puts the resources to the best

quality,
use, it
guarantees consumer interests. Thue
becomes an engine of economic and social
development.
In a monopoly, the
problem of justice occurs because not only it is
unfair to the
competitors but also the firm exploits the society as a
whole, making it pay a
than it would have in a free market higher pice
environment. (For further
explanation,see http://
mrski-apecon-2008.wikispaces.com/, 29 August 2011.) Figure 12.2, shows that
maximizing monopoly will produce at MR = proft
MC, charging a price Pm and producing
output Q Under perfect competition,consumers would
pay P. and consume Q where
P MC. The welfare loss for society social
(i.e., cost) is the area to the left of the

(MSB= D) is equal to
social
equilibrium point, where marginal social benefit
(MSC= MC). marginal sodal
cost

The Competition Act, 2002 intendsto

provide adequate safeguards to all the
the market. players m
Proper regulation is essential for healthy Hence, the Act
for a competition. proids
regulatory authoritycalled the
Competition Commission of India (CCI).

BOX12.1 DEFINITIONS*

AcoUISITION:
Directly or or
agreeing to acquire
acquiring
indirectly,

Shares, voting
rights, or
assets of
any enterprise
Control over
management or the assets of any enterprise
The definitions are
abridged to understand the on,See
the Competition Act,2002 concepts in this Act.For a full and elaborate des
Sec. 2.

Contd
 2002 351
The CompetitionAct,

Box 12.1 Contd

AGREEMENT: Any arrangement,understanding, or action in concert

Whether or not such arrangement, understanding, or action is formal or in w
be
or not such arrangement, understanding, or action is intended to
wnetner
enforceable by legal proceedings
APPELLATE

TRIBUNAL:
The CompetitionAppellate Tribunal established under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 53A.
An association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders, or service
CARTEL: proviaers
the
who, by agreement amongst themselves, limit, control, or attemptto control
of services.
production, distribution, sale, or price of, or trade in goods or provision

CHAIRPERSON: The Chairperson of the Commission appointed under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 8.
Sec.
(1) of
/.
COMMISSION
Competition Commission of India established under sub-sec.
CONSUMER: Any person who
which been or or
Buys any goods for a consideration has paid promised
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment
and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such
goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the

approval of such person, whether such purchase of goods is for resale, for any
commercial purpose, or personal use.

Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised
or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes ay beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or
avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and party
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed
of with the approval of the first-mentioned person, whether such hiring or availing
of services is for any commercial purpose or personal use.
DiRECTOR: The Director General appointed under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 16 and includes any
Additional, Joint, Deputy, or Assistant Directors-General or such officers or other

employees in the office of the Director-General

GENERAL Deputy or Assistant Directors General appointed under that section.

A person or a department of the Government, who or which is, or has been,

ENTERPRISE
in to the production, storage, supply, distribution,
engaged any activity, relating
of or goods,or the provision of services, of any
acquisition, or control
articles

underwriting, or
kind, or in investment, or the business of acquiring, holding,
in

dealing with shares, debentures, or other securities of any other body corporate,
either directly or through one or more of its units or divisions or subsidiaries,
whether such unit, division, or subsidiary is located at the same place where
the enterprise is located or at a different place or at different places, but does
not include any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign functions
of the Government, including all activities carried on by the departments of the
Central Government dealing with atomic energy, currency, defence and space.

EXPLANATION: For the purposes of this clause:

Activity: Profession or occupation

Article and service: A new article and service: A new service

Unit or division: No relation to an enterprise

Box 12.1 Contd

Plant or Established for the production, storage,supply, distribution,

I. factory:
or control of any article or goods
acquisition,
for the of any service
Any branch or office established
2. provision

Goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930) and includes:
GoODS:
or mined
I.Products manufactured, processed,
allotment
2. Debentures, stocks, and shares after
or controlled in India, goods
3. In relation to goods supplied, distributed,
into India
imported
of Sec. 8 and includes
MEMBER: Member of the Commission appointed under sub-sec.(1)
the Chairperson
Notification in the Official Gazette
NOTIFICATION: published

PERSON: An individual

A Hindu undivided family

A company
A firm
An of individuals, whether incorporated or
persons or a body
association of

not, in India or outside India

or
Any corporation established by or under any Central,State, Provincial Act
or a Government company as defined in Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956

( of 1956)
or under the laws of a country outside India
Any corporate incorporated by
A cooperative society registered
under any law relating to cooperative societies

A local authority

Every artificial juridical person,not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses
Any practice relating to the carrying on of any trade by a person or an enterprise
PRACTICE

Prescribed by rules made under this Act

PRESCRIBED

PRICE: In relation to the sale of any goods or to the performance of any services,
includes every valuable consideration,whether direct
or deferred, or indirect,

and includes any considerationwhich, in effect, relates to the sale of any goods
or to the performance of any services, although ostensibly relating to any other
matter or thing.

PuBLIC A public financial institution specified under Sec. 4A of the Companies Act, 1956
FINANCIAL (I of 1956) and includes a State Financial, Industrial or Investment Corporation.
INSTITUTION:

REGULATIONS: The regulations made by the Commission under Sec. 64.

RELEVANT The market which may be determined by the Commission eitherwith reference

MARKET to the relevant market, product market, or the relevant geographic market or
with reference to both the markets.
RELEVANT A market comprising the area in which the conditions of competition for supply

GEOGRAPHIC
of goods, provision of services, or demand of goods or services are
distinctly
MARKET: homogenous and can be distinguished from the conditions prevailing
in
the
neighbouring areas
Box 12. Contd

as
A market comprising all those products or services which are regardea
RELEVANT
of characteristicS
PRODUCT interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason
of the products or use.
MARKET services, their prices, and intended
users
SERVICE:
ervice any description which is made available to potential
of an
includes the provision of services in connection with business of any industria

or commercial matters such as banking, communication, education, financing

treatmen
nsurance, chit funds, real estate, transport, storage, material
of electrical or other boarding, lodging,
entertainment,
processing, supply energy,
and
dmusement, construction, repair, conveying of news or information,
advertising.

SHARES: Shares in the share and

capital of a
company carrying voting rights includes
Any security which entitles the holder to receive shares with voting
rights
Stock except where a distinction between stock and share is expressea or
implied

STATUTORY Any authority, board, corporation,council, institute, university, or any oner

AUTHORITY corporate body, established by or under any Central, State, or Provincial Act for
the purposes of regulating goods or provision of any
production or supply of
services or markets thereof or
any matter connected therewith or
incidental

thereto

TRADE Any trade, business, industry, profession, or occupationrelating to the production,

supply, distribution, storage, or control of goods and includes the provision of
any services

TURNOVER: Includes value of sale of goods or services

Words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Companies Act, 1956
( of 1956) shall have the same meanings, respectively, assigned to them in that Act.

ANT-COMPETITION AGREEMENTS*

TIE-IN: Any agreement requiring a purchaser of goods, as a condition of such purchase,

ARRANGEMENT to purchase some other goods.

ExcLUSIVE Any agreement, restricting in

any manner, the purchaser in the course of his
trade from acquiring or otherwise dealing in any goods other than those of the
seller or any other person.
ExcLUSIVE: Any agreement to limit, restrict, or with hold the output or supply of any goods
DISTRIBUTION or allocate any area or market for the disposal or sale of the
goods.
AGREEMENT

REFUSAL TO: DEAL Any agreement that restricts, or is likely to restrict, by any method, the
persons
or classes of persons to whom the goods are sold or from whom
goods are
bought.
RESALE Any agreement to sell goods on the condition that
the prices to be charged on
PRICE the resale by the purchaser shall be the prices stipulated by the seller, unless it
MAINTENANCE is stated that prices lower than those
clearly prices may be charged.

*See Secs 3-6 of the Act. saflo

354 Legal Aspects ofBusiness

12.4 PROHIBITION
OF COMBINATIONS
OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS, ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION, Ab a
No
enterprise orassociation ofenterprises or person or associatlon
ofpersonsshallenter inds an
uny
agreement in respect of production, supply, distribution,storage, acquisition or control ofquu
orprovision of services, which causes or is likely to cause dn apprecable adiverse efleeta

competition within India.

The
CompetitionAct, 2002, 3,1

The earlier text, from Sec. 3(1) of the Act is about prohibition
oenterint ie
into
competition agreements. Sec s 4 and 5 of thc Act deal with probiition of aise of d
position and combination of enterprisesand person,respectively, They have domit
been tyd
briefly as follows. plained

Anti-competition

Anti-competition agreements betwcen companies are also gencrally known as

antidre
indicatinga breach of trust toward other competitors and all the
stakeholdersin gui
The best of companies,such as Microsoft,Samsung, ctc., have becn embroiled in
antidr
cases. The anti-trust agreements which companies enter into are of twO types horiotal
and vertical (Table 12.2). These agreements are in contravention of the provisions of the
Competition Act, 2002.

Table 12.2 Anti-trust agreements

Horizontal Vertical

Agreements made between two or more competing These are agreementsbetween firms relating to
actual
firms. This is called formation of a which
cartel or potential relationship of purchasing or
selling to
helps in determining the supply as well as the price. each other with a purpose of dominating the market
Companies dealing with a particular product may Since such a relationship does not immediately
affect
come together to form such cartels. Cartels cut the customers, it is considered as a lesser evil
than the
competition, raise prices and earn unreasonably high horizontal one.
profits leaving customers no option but to buy. Any

agreements violating Sec. 3 (1) are void. The reasons as

Any agreementsviolating Sec, (1) are void, arethe
3
(Sec. 3,3) are as follows:
following
(a) directly or indirectly determines the purchase or
(a)Tie-in arrangement
sale pricess
(b) Exclusive supply agreement
(b) limits or controls production, supply, markets,
(c) Exclusive distribution
technical development,investment, provision of
agreement
(d) Refusal to deal
services
(e) Resale price maintenance
(c) shares the market, source of production, provision
of services by way of allocation of geographical area

type of goods or services,or number of

of market,
customersin the market, or any other similar way
(d) directly or indirectly results in bid rigging or
collusive bidding
 The Competition Act, 2002 355

rnhibition of Abuse of Dominant Position

A dominant posiion mplies that a

company, due to its market share and control
infrastructure
ana
tecnnology,1s so
overriding that the
olf
actions or control the prices. competitorsare unable to match

Section 4 of the
Competition Act, 2002
prohibits., directly or the abuse or
dominant position. Examples may be cited indirectly,
of a
a) directly or indirectuy imposes unfair or company that:
in discriminatory
()conditions purchase or sale of
goodsor service
i)price in purchase or sale
(including predatoryprice) of
limits or restricts goods or service
(b)

production of goods, provision of services, or market

ii) technical or scientihc thereot
development relating to goods or services to the prejudice or
consumers
c) indulges in practice or practices
resulting in denial of market access in any manner
(d makes conclusionof contracts
subject to acceptanceby other of supplementary
parties
obligations which, by their nature or
accordingto commercial usage, have no connecion
with the subjectof such contracts
(e) uses its dominant position in one relevant market to enter into, or protect, otherrelevant
markets
It must be understood very clearly by
you asa manager that the Act is not against companies
working hard to become leaders in their field. It is also not
against companies becoming
dominantin their area and even
gaining bigger market share than their What thecompetitors.
Act aimsatis that such a dominant position must not be
abused,ashas been illustrated earlie

Regulation of Combinations

ofone or more enterprises byone or more persons

E
The acquisition or merger or amalgamationof
shall be a combination
enterprises
ofsuch enterprises and persons or enterprises...
-The Competition Act, 2002, Sec. 5

Although the Act is not againstany combinations of acquisition, merger,or amalgamations,

but if these are beat competition and
strategized to establish monopolies thus adversely
affecting the competitors,then such activity is illegal. The following are some monetary
specified for acquisition:
limits

1. The parties jointly have:

(a) In India,assets of 71,000 crore or turnover
of R4,000 crore

(b) In India or outside, assets of US S500 million or turnoverUS $1,500 million

2. The groups jointly have:
a) In India, assets 74,000 crore or turnover R12,000 crore
b) In India or outside, assets of US $2 billion or turnoverof US S6 billion
3.
Direct or indirect contract of acquisition of the acquirer has directly or indirectly control over:

a In India, assets 74,000 crore or turnover R12,000 crore

b) In Incia or outside, the assets of US $2 billion or turnoverof US S6 billion
356 Legal Aspects of Business

4. enterprise after merger or amalgamation:

Any
(a) In India, assets 1,000 crore or turnover3,000 crore

(b) In Indiaor outside, the assets are US S500 million or turnover of US $1.50o..
The earlier regulation is to prevent any adverse effect on the other competitors, I
remembered not mandatory to declare any of these acquisitions, mercabe
that it is

amalgamations to the Competition Commission of India. The Act also showsrealism

the earlier mentioned
sd
the globalized business scenario by allowing activities internat ra-vis

The breach of the Act results in heavy penalty: ally

lfany person, being a party to a combination

(a)Makesa statement which is false in any material particular, or knowing it to be false; or

(b) Omits to state any material particularknowing it to be material,such person shall be liable to

apenalty which shall not be less than rupees fifty lakh and which may extend to rupees one crore,
asmay be determined by the Commission.
-The Competition Act, 2002, Sec. 44

Case 12.1 clearly demonstratesthe spirit of the

Competition Art
2002. In the interests of all the competitors in the market, itie
MANAGER'S TAKEAWAY watchful but at the same time shows openness to being questioned
Free market economy is and challenged. It shows a policy of transparency and dialogue
the new world order.
rather than confrontation and penalization. The petitioners,however
Transparency is the best
seem to be still in
the old frame of mind, where they have tofight by
policy.

challenging jurisdiction and other strategies.

APPELLANT: Aamir Hussain Khan and Others vs RESPONDENT: The Director General
CASE12.1 Commissionof India and Others
Competition

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 10 August 2010

FACTS: The petitioners challenge the separate show cause notices dated 21 December 2009
issued by the Competition Commissionof India, under Sec. 26(8) read with Sec. 3(3)
of the Competition Act, 2002.

The commission established under the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) does not have any jurisdiction to initiate any such proceedings in respect

of films for which the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 contain exhaustive

provisions. The Director General in his response stated in the information that the
members of these organizations: 1. United Producers/Distributors
Forum (UPD
2. Association of Motion Pictures and T.V.Programme Producers (AMPTPP), 3. The Hi
and Television Producers Guild of
Ltd (FTPG|) are perpetrating cartel-like activy
India

which is violative of provisions of Sec. 3(3) of Competition Act, 2002. It hasalsobet

er
alleged that these Associations/Enterprises, whojointly control approximately

Aamir Hussain Khan vs The Director General, UPA 1

wp358-10; also see http://www.indiankanon.org/
doc/1313927/ (29August 2011).
Contd
 The Competition Act, 2002 357

12.1 Contd
Case

cent of the market share

for
in
production and distribution of Hindi Motion Pictures
Multiplexes, by
organizing themselves exnio
under the umbrella of
decision not to release UPDF, took a
films to the collecuve
objective to extract a Multiplexes from 4 April 2009 onwardswith
higher revenue tne
and this cartel like sharing ratio from the members of the
has an informant
activity
appreciable adverse effect on
Petition dismissed; competition in inala.
lupGEMENT:
appeal allowed

REASON
Mere issuance of a show
cause notice under
Sec, 26(8)/Sec.27, like the issuance or
chargesheet in a
departmental
inquiry, cannot be treated as
a
because the petitioners had pre-judging the issue, merey
raised some of the
notice issued legal contentions in the replies to
by the Director General of tne
has issued show cause Investigation and thereafter also the
notices.That can never Commission
will not consider
mean that the Competition Commission
the
petitioners'
objections against maintainabilityof the
proceedings.
The Petitions are
dismissed only on the
cause notices and that it groundsthat the petitions challenge show
is
open to the petitioners to raise all available contentions,
including preliminary
objection against legality or otherwise of initiation of the
proceedings against the
petitioners.

125 COMPETITION COMMISSiON OF INDIA

(1) Witheffect from such date as the Central
Government may, by notification, appoint, there shall be
established, for the purposes of this Act, a Commission to be called the of
'Competition Commission
India'

(2)The Commission shalbe abody corporate by the name aforesaid

having perpetual succession and
acommon seal with power, subject to the provisions
ofthis Act, hold, and dispose
to acquire,
movable and immovable, and to ofproperty
both contract and
shall,by the saidname,sue or be sued.
Thehead office shall be at such
oftheCommission place astheCentral Government may decide from
time to time.

The Commission may establish offices at other places in India.

- The
Competition Act, 2002, Sec. 7, 1-4

Composition of the Commission

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) was established on 14 October
2003. It
consists
of a chairperson and six members appointed by the central government. These
shall be persons of ability and integrity with specialization in subjects
such as international

rade, cconomics, business, accountancy,management,

finance, and competition matters
Such as and competition. The chairman is chosen by a committee formed
policy by the
central government consisting of the Chicf Justice of India, the Secretary of Ministry of
Affairs, the Secretary in the Ministry Law and Justice, and two other experts
orporate of
ficlds. The term of office for five years. The office is
is
terminated
n theabove-mentioned
in other
y resignation, insolvency, engagement employment, conviction, conflict of interest,
aDuse of position, inability, and death (Secs
9 11).
358 Legal Aspects of Business

commission, the central

ntral
from the earlier-mentioned appointed
Apart General to assIst the commission ngovernment
a Director cond
may by notification, appoint the of the provisions
of the Act,. Furtho duct
of any Further
inquiry
into contravention
or Assistant Director
General or such officers may also beAdditional onal
Deputy
andJoint also will possess similar qualifications
and abilities as that of thPOnted
(Sec.16).
These
of the commission.

Commission of India
Duties and powers of Competition
into the practices of the COm
duties consisting of inquiry
Secs 18-20 deal with alist of
Act.
following The is a summary of the de
which may contravenethe Competition duties:

adverse etlects on competition such as the potentiol

1. Eliminate practices having level
the market, the snht,
level of combination in
of competition through imports, stitutes

failing businesses, etc.

in the market, level of vertical integration,
available

2. Promote and sustain competition.

3. Protect the interests of the consumers.

in the market.
carried on by other participants
4. Ensure freedom of trade
into abuse of dominant position
and about combinations.
5. Conduct inquiry

Procedures

According Sec. 26 of the Act:

to
or anystatutory
1. On receipt of reference
from central government or a state government
the Director General will commence
an investigation of a prima facie case.
authority,

2. The Director General will then submit a report to the Competition Commission of

India.
to the concerned
The Commission then forwards a copy of the parties.
3. report
that there is no contravention of the Act,the
office
4. If the Director General's reports

commission shall invite objection or suggestions from the central government, the state

the as the case may be.

government, or statutory authority,
the matter is closed. If the said
5. If these agreewith the Director General,then suggestions

with further inquiry.

and objections are made, then the case shall proceed
6. The time limit for inquiry is one year.

Powers

The Commission has powers to regulate own procedure (Sec. 36) as follows
its
he
rules and regulations O
1. It shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and the

central government. 908:

2. It will same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1
exercise
0ath.
him
(a Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining
(b) Requiring the discovery and production
of documents.

(c) Receiving evidence

on affidavit.

(d) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.

 The Competition Act,2002 359

e) Requisitioning, subject to the

provisions of Secs 123 and 124
1872 (I of
of the IndianEvidence Act,
18/2),any public record
or document or
from any office. (Sec.36, 2) copv of such record or
docuic
3. The Commission may call
upon the services of the professionals and
necessary. (Sec.36, 3) experts as it deeis

4. The Commission may direct

any person to produce before the
Director General or
any other otficer authorized
by it, such books or documents or related
examined. (Sec. 36, 4) material to De

5. The Commission has the

powers to
or any mistake
apparent irom
rectify its orders, uic
records. (Sec. 38)
6. Execution of orders: The Commission has the powers to
impose monetary penaiuc
(Sec. 39)

Penalties

Secs 42-48 of the Act deal with

penalties, summarized in Table 12.3.

Table 12.3 Offence and penalty

Offence
Penalty
Contravention of the orders of the Commission

-
Imprisonment up to one year and fine up to
1 lakh or both

Failure to complywith the directions of the For every day of defaultR1 lakh
Commission and the Director General

For making falsestatements or omitting to Above50lakh to F1 crore

furnishmaterial information about being party to
combination

Offences relating to furnishing information Up to 10 lakh

such as misstatement, omission of material,

alteration, etc.

Competition appellate tribunal

The tribunal is and governed by Sec. 53A-53U. It deals with the complete
established

establishment, composition,and functioning of the civil code procedure as mentioned earlier

for the Commission. It consists of a highly reputed legal expert judge who has the
ability
to be the with two of its members also of the
chairman, in association legal fraternity. The
term is of five years.

The Appellate Tribunal have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the
shall

same powersasare vested in a civil court under the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while
trying
a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:
(a) and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath
Summoning
0 Requiring the discovery and production
of documents
260 el Ae fN of Bsiless

on afmdavwit
Neceiving evidence
of Secs 123 and124 ofthe
ndian Evidence
( Subyectto the provisions document or copy of such fecord.
public record or
of 1872), requisitloning any
e)Act, 18/2(1
document nom any offie of witnesses
or doCuments
for theexamination
)/8suingommissons
decis/ons
()Weviewingits delault or deciding
it
exparte
a
(h) Dismssing representation
for tor detault or any order passed w.
y ex it
representation
asde any order ofdismissal ofany
)Setting

Parte
which may beprescribed
)Anyother matter Act, 2002,
The Competition Sec, 53

"The Delhi High

landmark lor the protectionof Customers, Court
Case 12.2 has become a
filed by DLF Lid and its related cntities inst the
writ petitions
has dismiNseed a bunch
of
Act. Pursuant to the judeeme
CCIunder Secs 26(1)and 33 of the Competition
ordersof Sec, the
Director
of CCIunder 20(1)directing
in CCI an order
of Court vsSAIL, be
Supreme matter that cannot appealed bcfore the
into a
to carry out an investigation
General order underSec,26/
interested parties seek to challenge such
'Tribunal, 'Therefore,
Appellate the Constitution,
Act before writ courts under Article226 of
of the Competition

Additional Director General

VS RESPONDENT:
AppLLANT: DLF Limited and Others
CASE 12.2
DATE OF JuDGEMENT: 4January2011
these writ petitions is to the
order dated 20 May 2010 passed by
The challenge in
FACTS:
of India ('CCI) under Sec.
26 (1) of the Competition
the Competition Commission
the CCI under
Act, 2002 (Act'),
an order dated 20 September 2010 passed by
the CCI directing
Sec. 33 of the Act and an order dated
2
December 2010 passed by
report dated
further relief is for quashing of the investigation
a further inquiry. The
Director General (ADG') of the CCI. An alternative
13 October 2010 of the Additional
the CCI to decide the issues raised by the
is for a direction to jurisdictional
prayer of
in accordance with the principles natural
Petitioners as a preliminary objection
is for a direction to the CCI not to proceed witn
further alternative prayer
justice. A
to the Petitioners.
the inquiry till all the documents are supplied

Petitions disposed with order (below)

JUDGEMENT:
or
documents being provided to the Petitioners on
the bero
REASON It is directed that

7 January 2011, the

upon
Petitioners will be granted two weeks'time thereafter
to
e
objections to the ADG's Investigation Report. In other words, the objections wi
filed on or before 21 January 2011.The CCI WP (Civil) will reschedule the nea
reafter
fixed for 6 January 2011 to 14 February 2011 or any other date as soon ofore
as may be convenient to the CCI. In view of the need for the proceeding

also http://
Seehttp://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SMD/judgement/06-01-2011/SMD04012011CW222011.pdf;
indiankanoon.org/doc/1694565/ (1 September
2011)

Contd
 The Competition Act, 2002 361

Case 12.2 Contd

the CCI to be
concluded
expeditiously, as mandated by the SAIL it is
directed that the said
time schedule should judgement,
be strictly adhered to by the partues.
A distinction was
drawn,however, between
this and an adjudicatory speaking order
which was to be
passed by the CCI due application of mind'by responding to
all contentions
'upon
raised before it
by the rival party.
Seethe Chapter End Case where the Court
between the orderto be passed
a prima facie opinion under Sec.
distinguished
byCiwnetorn
26, 1 and other orders.

The customers who had invested with DLF housing were aggrieved. They alleged that DL
was abusingits dominant
position by delaying delivery of apartmentsand changing its plans.
For instance, it had increased the number of floors in the project without informingthe people
who had already bought flats there. They also complained that the
MANAGER'S TAKEAWAY agreements that the apartment buyers were made to sign were very
Competition advocacy is one-sided because they were drafted in such a
way that consumers
the new mantra. could not understand certain terms and DLF had retained
Market dominance cleverly
an the the terms. Further, DLF had sold the apartments
is
to
outdated idea. power change
even before getting the clearances from the authorities.
appropriate

SUMMARY
Introduction and Interpretation In similar fashion,all kinds of market domination to
CompetitionAct, 2002 replaced MRTP Act, 1969 the detriment of other competitors is prohibited.
with the objective to promote and sustain com- The Act does not discourage market
leadership or
pletion in markets and protect the interests of the the growth in market share; what it actively prohibits

consumers. is the abuse of such leadership or

dominance
A Commission and a Tribunal to enable the objec-
tives were established. Competition Commissionof India and the
Competition Appellate Tribunal
Prohibition Agreements,Abuse
of Certain The Act is empowered to function through two
of Dominant Position, and Regulation of
high-powered institutions:

Combinations The Competition Commission of India which

The Act wants to safeguard free trade by prohibiting may act upon the complaints by the aggrieved
certain
strategies by the companies to form cartels or competitors andconsumers or may launch inquiry
Such
strategies which are detrimental to competition. on its own upon observation that the objects of
Horizontal and vertical agreements are such strategies the Act are endangered.
which restrict trade, hinder fair
pricing and also The Competition Appellate Tribunal is created

obstruct
the natural course of supply, and demand to supply legal remedy to the aggrieved. It is
to controls exercised by the monopolistic hoped that the Tribunalfunctions efficiently and
Cue
Dehaviour of combined strength ofthe companies. promptly.
362 Legal Aspects of Business

EXERCISES

Introduction and Interpretatton After you have bought a

piece of real ecr
What do you understand by the concept of a franchise business, you learn
from
competition in terms of market traders about the silent fraud. your
competition?
What felow
Give reasons for its desirability or undesirability the buyer have?
Hint: There is
remedy d
does
with examples. remedy; see Secs 2 (6)
and 3of
i What constitutes competition policy? Site some (iv) What constitutes abuse of theAt
dominance?
examples in the competition law which is the
( What do you understand by
regulation
result of such binations?
policies. com

Competition Commission of India

Prohibition of Certain Agreements Abuse of Dominant Position
) The Central Government or State
and Regulation of Combinations Govem
cannot make a reference
to the nment
CCI for inou
Which of the following agreements are
competi- Hint: It can; see Sec.19 (1) b of the
Act. nquiry
and
tive
anti-competitive? () A company complained to the CCI abor
bout
Agreement to limit production and supply unfair means adopted by the
another
Agreement to allocatemarkets compav
and its
subsidiary n winning the
contracts
Agreement to fix price and
depriving it and others from such a
Bid rigging or collusivebidding portunity Can the CCI take
businessop
up the case?
Conditional purchase/sale (tie-in arrangement) Hint:Yes see Sec. 29 of the
(1) Act.

Exclusive supply/distribution arrangement (i) The Competition Appellate Tribunal gave an

Resale price maintenance adverse ruling against a
respondent compay
Refusal todeal where CCI was the petitioner. The
Hint:All are aggrieved
anti-competitive.
party moved the High Court,
pleading that
the
A firm,after conducting the market survey of
time given by CCI to file the requisite
informaion
its product, found that if it
acquired its nearest was The CCI
inadequate. countered saying
competitor, it would be the market leader in
that had given the stipulated
it time as per
that product. It proceeded the
to acquire the other
Competition Act, 2002. What are the
chances
company as per all the legal requirements in the
of the
aggrieved company?
Company Law, 1956. It received a notice from Hint: See procedure for investigation 29 (1)of theA
the Competition Commission of India. What also see chapter end case in this
chapter
would be found in the notice? (iv) What are the orders that the Commission can
Hint: See Sec. 6 of the Act.
pass in the case of anti-competitive agreemens
i1 The builders in a city tacity come to an arrange- and abuse of dominance?
ment to manage the prices of real estate; this
do without any formal or written agreement.
they (V What are the duties and powers of
the
u

DEVELOPMENT OF LEGAL EDGE

Research Project
Determine the strategies followed by
the
o
mpany

Choose a segment of industry or service in and:

your city against its

Conduct a surveyto determine the dominant

competitors.
and the ma
Determine thedifferent incomegroups
company said
ner in which they farewith the product
 The Competition Act,2002 363

the economic and social costs or

the issues not only big
Determine companiesGoogle, Apple,
gains,
and others-who are facing lawsuits but also about
the Indian
companies who are now global leaders
for Discussion
Film in their respective businesses.
TRUST, Witten by Howard Franklin and directed
Anti
T7
Howitt (2001)
by
Peter Manager's SpecialInterest
:.not difficult to find out the allusions made
It
in To appreciate competition, discover its various
mean-
movie to crosoft and its nder Bill Gates.
the
ings for yourself by reading and compiling the
discussion should focus on
However, your the
history of competition law

FURTHER READING

The Competition Act, 2002:

http://www.cci.gov. www.cci.gov.in/images/media/completed/
1.
in/images/media/ competition_act/act2002.pdf? cartel report1_20080812115152.
pdf.
2. CUTS International and National Law 3. Vijay Kumar Chaurasia (201 International
1).
University Jodhpur, (2008). Study of Cartel Cooperation:Application and Enforcement
Case Laws in Select Jurisdictions, for
Learnings Issues, http://www.ci.gov.in/images/media/
the Competition Commission of India',
http:// ResearchRe-ports/VijayKrChaurasia.pdf.

CASE STUDY SAIL IN TROUBLED WATERS

The advantages of perfect competition are three-fold: alocative efficiency, which

ensuresthe efective allocation ofresources;productive which ensures that
efciency,
costs are keptat aminimum;and dynamic effciency, which promotes
ofproduction
innovative practices. These factors by and large have been accepted all over the
world as the guiding principles for effective implementation of competition law'

The Law

Section 19(1) Section 26(1)

Ihe
Commissionmay inquire into any alleged On receipt ofa reference from the Central Government
contravention
of the provisions contained in sub-Sec. (1) or aState Government or a statutory or on its
authority

obec3or sub-Sec. (1)

ofSec.4,
either on its own motion
own knowledge
or
information received under Sec. 19, if
or on:
the Commission is of the opinion that there exists a
(0)
prima
29freceipt of any information,in such manner facie case, it shall direct the Director General to cause an

and accompanied by such fee as may be determined investigation to be made into

the matter: Provided that
y regulations, from any person, consumer, or their if the matter of information receivedis, in the
subject
aSsociation or trade
association; or opinion of the Commission, substantially the same as or
made to it by the CentralGovernment or a by information received,
Sh
tateerence has been covered any previous
Government or a statutory authority.
then the new information may be clubbed with the
previous information.

Commission of India vs Steel Authority of India,

doc/R6A0he judgement: Competition http://www.indiankanoon.org/
doc/864375/
(1
September2011).
 Competition Commission of India

Jindal Steel petitiors againstSAIL to

SAIL

CCI takes action

Jindal Steel against SAlIL

CAT

SAIL petitions

Competition AppellateTribunal

CCI vs SAIL in SC

Supreme Court of India

CCI petition upheld for competition advocacy

The Words 1SSued a notice to SAIL to furnish certain intora

notice
withintwo weeks from the date of receipt of su
Jindal Steel had led a complaint before CCI
SAIL requested for an extension of six weekS to
the
alleging anti- file
On
competitive practices and abusive dominance by SAIL
required information. CCI, in its meeting, delibera n
while it entered into an exclusive supply agreement with further exte*
the request and decided not to grant ion on
Indian Railways. Upon receipt of the complaint, CCI facie
also formed a prima
meeting, CCI
the op
said
 The Competition Act, 2002 365

theexzstence
e of the case

to
and directed

the matter pursuant to

the Director General

its powers under

. Whether it is obligatory

reasons for formation of a prima facie opinion

for the Commission to

in
record
terms

inquire
Competition Act,
2002 SAIL challenged of Sec. 26(1) of the Act?
26)ofthe be by the Court
Tribunal,claimingthat CCI could need to issued
Sec.
before the 6. What directions, if any,

this durectio case without hearing in to procedural

a prima facie it to ensure proper compliance regard
formed
have the schemeof the
not
contended that CCI has not recorded any requirements while keeping
in mind
SAILalso
first. the prima facie case and that the time Act and the intent?
eforming legislative
while
reasons
information was inadequate. While
by CCI
to file

provided before Tribunal, SAIL did not plead CCi The principles
the appeal
ing
aling
CCI, thus, filed an appication before Tribunal
a Darty.
as
as a necessary and proper party and Legislative intent
itself
as pleading itse
for
The of Secs 26 and 53A of the Act clearly
the very of appeal, provisions
also assailed maintainability
intent that the framers never desired
in its detailed order, holding that even depict the legislative
The Tribunal,
was appealable under Sec. 53 A that all and decisions should be
to inquire (1) orders, directions,
the direction
Sec. 53A, against a direction
the Act noted that CCl could not have directed the appealable to the Tribunal.
of
for investigation, as that itself is an appealable right
General to inquire nto the complaint without
may be made
Director
or order which
first heard SAlL. It urther noted that CCI was independent of any decision
having
nor a proper party in appeals filed by or passed by the Commission.
neither a necessary

an aggrieved party
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also

not record any reasons while declining Clarnty of language

noted that CCI did

The language of Sec. 53A is clear and the statute does not
extension ot time and hence it in violation of
to grant
demand that we should substitute 'or' or read this word
of natural justice.
principles
for achieving the object of the Act.
On
interchangeably

the contrary, the objective of the Act is more than clear

The Case that the legislature provide a very limited right
intended to

In the Supreme Court of India to appeal. The orders which can be appealed against have
been stipulated by unambiguously excluding
Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar specifically

the provisions which the legislature

did not intend to make
Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of

appealable under the provisions of the Act.

India Ltd (SAIL)Date: 9 September 2010

Natural vs statutory right

rnight

The Questions to be Determined

Itis well known that right of appeal is not a natural orinherent
It cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly
Whether the directions passed by the Commission in right. provided
cxercise of its powers under Sec. 26(1) of the Act forming forby statute. Being a creature of statute, remedy of appeal
a prima facie opinion would be appealable in terms must be legitimately traceable to the statutory
of provisions.
Sec. of the Act? Sec. 13 provides a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by an
53A(1)
2. What is the ambit and scope of power vested with the order under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 11 or Sec. 12 and no other.
ommission under Sec. 26(1) of the Act and whether The principle of 'appealbeing a statutory right and no party
having a
the
parties, including the informant or the affected party, right to file appeal except in accordance with the
are
entitled to notice or hearing,as a matter of right, at prescribed procedure is now well-settled.
tne
preliminary stage of formulating an opinion as to
the
existence of the prima facie Expressum facit cessare tacitum
case
Whether the Commission would be a necessary, or A statute is stated to be the edict of Legislature. It expresses

st
Tribunal
a
proper,

in an
party in the proceedings before the the will of Legislature and the
the document according to the intent
function of the Court is to

appeal preferredby any party

rty? interpret of those who
4.

at
A
ACTCISe
stage andin what manner can the Commission

powers vested under Sec. 33 of the Act to

made it.
the
t is a settled rule

should be interpreted
of construction of statute that
in it provisions by applying the plain
Pass
temporary restraint orders rule of construction
 366 Legal Aspects ofBusiness

The Courts normally would

not imply anything that is by the Commission, it is
expected that the same woula
inconsistent with the words expressly used by the statute. some reasoning At the stage be
supported by of
ming a
Expressun facit
cessare tacitum
Express mention of one thing prima facie view, as required under Sec.
26(1) of the
the exclusion of the other (Expression the Commission act,
implies precludes may not really record
detailed reasons
must express its mind in no uncertainterms that but
implication). it is of athe
view that the prima facie case exists,
Reason to appeal
requiring issuance of
direction for investigation to the Director
General. Such
Onc of the
parties before the Commission would, in any view should be recorded with reference to the
information
case,be aggrieved by an order where the Commission furnished to the Commission.
grants or declines to grant extension of time. Thus,
every The power under Sec.33of the Act,to pass a
temporarv
such order passed by the Commission would have to be can only be exercised
restraint order, by the Commission
treated as appealable as per the contention raised
by the when it has formed prima facie opinion and
directed
respondent before us as well as the view taken by the in terms of Sec. 26(1) of the
investigation Act,as is evident
Tribunal. from the language of this provision read with Regulation
The meaning and language of Sec. 53A of the Act of the
18(2) Regulations.
and also on the principle is that they are not orders which
Having examined various legal issues
determine the rights of the No arising in
parties. appeal can lie the present case, we will now revert back to the
facts
against such an order. Still the parties are not remediless of the case in hand. It is clear that
Jindal Steel,the
as, when
they prefer an appeal against the final order, made
informant, had a reference to the
Commission.
they can always take up grounds to challenge the interim The Commission had initiated
proceedings and askedfor
orders/directions passed by the Commission in the
further information from the
memorandum informant and,thereafter,
of appeal. Such an approach would be in had even issued notice calling upon SAIL to submitits
consonance with the procedural law prescribed in Order
Views and comments.
XLIII Rule lA and even other provisions of Code of Civil From the records, it is clear that parties had appeared
Procedure. before the Commission. SAIL had failed to file the reply
and prayed for extension of time, which was declined
by
Litigant has a to know
right the Commission in its order dated 8 December 2009. The
Director General was asked to conduct the
A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in investigation, but
liberty was granted to SAIL to file its views and
accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant comments
or rejection of his Reasons are the soul of orders. A during the pendency of the investigation. Since further
prayer.
time was declined, SAIL preferred an appeal before the
judgement without reasons causes prejudice to the person
whom Tribunal,which resulted in passing of the order
against it is
pronounced, as that litigant is unable to impugned
in the present appeal.
know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting

his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate

It must be
rejected that the Commissionis not a
and before the higher court in the event necessary or proper party before the Tribunal. On the
appropriate grounds
of challenge contrary, the Regulations and even the interest of
to that
judgement. justice
demands that for complete and effective adjudication,
the Commission be added as a necessary and properpary
The Legal Reasoning
the proceedings before the Tribunal.
in
Thedirection isuaed
The above principles that are consistent with the settled
by the Commission was set aside by the Tribunal and
canons of law would be adopted in this case.
Against further time was granted to SAIL to file its further reply l
the backdrop of these determinants, we
may refer to the addition to what has been filed on 15 December 2009,and
provisions of the Act. Sec. 26, under its different sub- the Tribunal then directed rall
the Commission to consider
sections, that requires the Commission to issue various such material and record a fresh decision.
directions, take decisions, and pass some of which
orders, There is no statutory obligation on the Commission
are even appealable before the Tribunal. of
issue notice for grant of hearing to the parties at the stag
Even if it is a direction
forming an opinion under Sec.26(1) of the Act unless, pon
under any of the
provisions
and not a decision, conclusion, or order passed on merits due application of mind, it finds it necessary to invite parties
 2002 367
The Competition Act,

as well as the open

to and produce documents affect any of the parties
render assistance adversely
at that stage. One cannot agree of the proVISIOnS
orcxper ommission market in purposeful implementation
the
efore by the 'Tribunal that the inquiry of the Act.
view expressed
sub-Sec.(1) of inquiry the Commission
during the course
in
as soon as the aspects Wherever
highlighted
nces it should
and brought to the notice of the its jurisdiction to pass interim orders,
19are
fulfilled Cxercises
are as
to Sec.
a final order in that behalf as expeditiously
pass
than 60 days.
Regulation 18(2) was not brought to not
Commission. in later
that possible and, any case,
It is obvious 20 is
theno
ofthe Tribunal which resulted in error of
law D. The Director General in terms of Regulation
a reasonable time.
in the light of other to submit his report within
when examined provision expected
ularly, further
2articula of the
Act as well. Th Commission, vide its No inquiry by the Commission
can proceed any
scheme
nd
2009, had, for reasons the Director General
8 December stated in the absence of the report by
ted
rder
tension of time to SAIL. This in terms of Sec. 26(2) of the Act.
The reports by the
clined the
therein, be stated to be without within the time
Commissio: cannot Director General should be submitted
of the
but in all cases not
order later
or suftering trom any apparent error of law as directed by the Commission
risdiction in
urzs of directions
However, the Tribunal,
in exercise of its
judicial than 45 days from the date of passing

had interfered with the said order and granted terms of Sec. 26(1) of the Act.
shall
discretion,
SAIL should pay a sum The as the Director General
time to
SAILuncondiionally. E. Commission as well
irther
of as envisaged under
for maintain complete 'confidentiality'
f 25,000 to the infornmant seeking extension time.

the additional Sec. 57 of the Act and Regulation 35

of the Regulations.
The cOSt shall be conditional, where, after
is breached, the
fled by SAIL is taken on record, the Commission Wherever the person's confidentiality
has the right to approach the
reply

shall apply
its mind to form prima facie view in terms of
a aggrieved party certainly
directions in
of the Act, if the report of the Director General Commission for issuance of appropriate
Sec. 26(1)
received as yet. In the event that the report terms of the provisions
of the Act and the Regulations
has not been

by the Director General during the period 8 in force.

prepared

December 2009 to 11 January, 2010 has been received,

Commission shall proceed in accordance with the

the TheJudgement
of the Act and the principles of law enunciated
provisions
The scheme and essence of the Act and the Regulations
notice to the informant as
in this judgement giving proper of speedy and expeditious
are clearly suggestive disposal
orders.
well as to SAIL and pass appropriate
of the matter.

The Competent Authority shall frame Regulations

The Directions of
providing a definite, time frame for completion
investigation, inquiry, and final
disposal of the matters
The Court Order was as follows:
the Commission. Till such Regulations
A
Regulation 16 prescribes limitation of 15 days for the pending before
to consider are framed, the period specified of 60 days (see Directives
Commission to hold its first ordinary meeting
whether case exists or not and in cases of C) shall remain in force and we expect all the concerned
prima facie

abuse of authorities to adhere to the period specified.

aleged anti-competitive agreements and/or
dominant the opinion on existence of prima
This appeal is partially allowed. The order dated
position,
1acie case has to be formed within 60 days. Though the 15 February 2010 passed by the Tribunal is modified to

such has been the above extent. The Commission shall proceed with
time period for acts of the Commission
to hold the case in accordance with law and the principles
specihed, stll
expected of the Commission
it is

enunciated the
is
meetings and record its opinion about the existence (in directives).

of a much
prima facie case within period
otherwise a
or
shorter than the stated period. The Final Word1
B.
u proceedings, including investigation
and inquiry,

Competition Act, 2002 is fairly a new legislation until it

nould be completed by the Commission/Director
that the matures with case law. In the above case, the Court clearly
CTal most expeditiously and while ensuring
Taken in completion of such proceedings does not wanted to set a precedent. Initially, it remarked on the new
 368 Legal Aspects ofBusiness

order of the globalized

and competitive cconomy. It dwelt 2. What are the main issues dealt in this case?

on the merits of with its social and economic 3. Examine each principle
and its
applicability to the case
competition

consequences. 4. Are you sure that natural justice is not legal justice?
The What would you do differently you were the manager
expounded various legal principles
court 5.
upon

it
which it would base its judgement. It clearly defined the of SAIL or Jindal Stecl?
scope and powers of the CCI and the Tribunal and thecir 6. Are the directives of the Court realistic? How would you
statutory
nature where appeals are not a natural right. think of them from a manager's perspective?

However, not giving an opportunity to explain to the litigant 7. Would you make any amendments to the Court's
without adequate time cannot serve the purpose of the judgement? Explain with reasons and precedents from
existence of these agencies. other cases.
The Court passed its judgement not only basing
itself the principles it annunciated but also giving Going Beyond
upon
clear directives how the
respective parties must conduct 1. Can you detect a new attitude that the Supreme Court

themselves. adopted in this case? Analyse your answer if 'Yes'

or give
rcasons if your answer is 'No.
Discussion Questions 2. Why the concept of natural justice important?
is

1. Enumerate the number of parties in this case and explain 3. How would you debate the proposition: Monopoly is

their relationship to each other. good for the stability of the economy?

LEGAL LUMINARY

JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT-CHAIRPERSON, COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

A highly learned man, a scholar and an indefatigable finance, accountano management, industr, public affairs

worker, Justice Pasayat came into the limelight admunistration or in any other matter which in the opiniom ofthe

during the controversial Special Investigation Central Government, may be usgful

to
the Appellate Tribunal

Probe of the Gujarat riots of 2002.Normally, in The Competition Act, 2002,53 D (1&2)
the ordinary course of his profession, he had dealt
Justice Pasayat's curriculum vitae hasitall.
with taxation, corporate affairs and, Constitutional
matters. However,it has been an extraordinary run
Educational
to have delivered over 2500 judgementsas ajudge Graduation with Honours in English
of the Court. It has been considered a First rank in LLB from M.S. College, Cuttack
Supreme
world record. Degrec in B.Com.
The Competition 2002 lists a wide range of Excelled in Charted Accountancy (CA)
Act,
qualifications for the chairperson and members of Professional
the Appellate Tribunal such as: Practised law since 1968 especially in the field of

(1) The Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall be taxation and Constitutional Law
a person, who is or has ben aJudge of the Sutpreme Court
Appointed Additional Judge of the Orissa High
or the ChiefJustice of a High Court. Court in 1989
(2)A member of the Trnbunal shall be a fperson PermanentJudge of the same court in
Appellate 1990
of and knowledge 1999 for Lega
ability integriby standing having special Acting Chief Justice of Orissa in
of and professional experience of not less than
twenty five Education
maters
ears in, competiton inchuding competition lauw and
Chief Justice of Kerala High Clourt in 1999
poicy international trade, economics, business, commerce, lau,
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court in 2000
 The CompetitionAct, 2002 3
Contd
Luminary
legal
of the frecdom
Court in 2001 till his Orissa and a well-known leader
of the Supreme of Orissa has
Judge movement of India. The State
in 2009 1aw
retirement with a Doctorate in
of the Competition honoured its son of the soil
the Chairperson and LLD
Presenty from Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar,
Tribunal Balasore
Appellate from Fakir Mohan
was born in 1944 in Orissa. He is
University,
Ariit Pasayat
an eminent jurist from
the Biswanath Pasayat,
son