Presented by:

Sanket Singla (16010125010)

Aditya Ladha (16010125019)
Ashish David Rao (16010125044)
 Meaning
 Competition means economic rivalry between entities or
companies, to draw the highest number of consumers and earn
the most profit.
 The objective of all Competition laws, around the world is to
ensure an environment where all companies compete fairly.
 MRTP Act, 1969
 The first legislation with respect to the Competition
Law in India.
 Was recommended by the heads of the three
committees, namely Mr. Hazari, Prof. Mahalonobis
and Mr. Das Gupta.
 The genesis of the Act can be traced back to Art. 38
and 39 of the Constitution of India.
 Aimed at doing away with the Monopolistic,
Restrictive and the Unfair Trade Practices.
 Problems and Shortcomings of the
MRTP Act, 1969
 The introduction of the NEP of 1991 made it
difficult for the MRTP Act, 1969 to help in
certain cases.
 The Act did not define certain trade practices
such as abuse of dominance, price fixing, bid
rigging etc.
 Act did not provide sufficient remedy to the
complainants, as it did not provide for the
penalties for the breach of law.
 Problems and Shortcomings of the
MRTP Act, 1969
 Thus, a need was felt to do away with the current
legislation and replace it with a more effective Act, as
was suggested by the Raghavan Committee in the year
2000, and thus, Competition Act, 2002 came into
picture.
Competition Act, 2002: Salient Features
 Anti-Competitive Agreements (S.3)
Anti-Competitve agreements are agreements entered
into by enterprises or by persons with respect to
production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition
or control of goods or provision of services which has
chances of causing significant amount of harmful
effect.
Competition Act, 2002: Salient Features
 Abuse of Dominant Position (S.4)
It is not illegal for an entity to have dominant position, but it is
the abuse of the position which attracts the provisions of the Act.
If an entity imposes an unfair condition or practices, which has a
detrimental effect on the consumers, then the enterprise is
engaging in abuse of its dominant position.
Competition Act, 2002: Salient Features
 Combinations (Section 5 & 6):
These sections seek to regulate the operation and
activities of combinations. The act does not allow any
combinations which result in substantial adverse effect
on competition in India and the combination shall be
deemed void.
 Judicial and Adjudicating authorities
 Competition Commission of India (CCI):
It is the highest body established under the
Competition Act, 2002 and is vested with the
responsibility of implementation of the provisions of
the Act, elimination of restrictive trade practices and
for the protection of the welfare of the public.
The validity of the Competition Commission of India
(CCI) was challenged in Brahm Dutt v. Union of
India.
 Judicial and Adjudicating authorities
 Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT):
The Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) was
introduced for executing adjudicatory functions and
empowered to hear any appeals against any counsel or
directions made by the Competition Commission of India.
In Aamir Khan Production v. Union of India, the issue
was whether IP can be dealt by the Competition
Commission of India (CCI), the Bombay High Court held
that CCI can deal with IPR related matters if it is in direct
contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act,
2002.
GOALS – Competition Policy
 National Competition Policy is necessitated as an overarching Policy
framework to infuse greater competition across sectors, and unleash
full growth potential of the Indian economy. Faced with dynamic
market realities, there is a need for promoting economic democracy,
the forces of competition and transparency in markets in keeping with
the rapidly changing market conditions to ensure the protection of
consumer interests, while at the same time protecting the rights of
market players to fair competition.
 The need for Competition Policy was also articulated by the Finance
Minister when he underscored that: “Competition law alone is not
sufficient for realizing the gains from greater competition”. He further
added that: “There is need to engage in advocacy with stakeholders,
including public institutions, in order to build a culture of competition
that is receptive to and supportive of the new competition regime.”
 The National Competition Policy aims to promote
economic democracy, achievement of highest
sustainable levels of economic growth,
entrepreneurship, employment, higher standards of
living, and protect economic rights for just, equitable,
inclusive and sustainable economic and social
development, and supports good governance by
restricting rent seeking practices.
 Competition Policy endeavors to:

 preserve the competition process, to protect

competition, and to encourage competition in the
domestic market so as to optimize efficiency and
maximise consumer welfare,
 promote, build and sustain a strong competition
culture within the country through creating
awareness, imparting training and consequently
capacity building of stakeholders including public
officials, business, trade associations, consumers
associations, civil society etc.,
 achieve harmonization in policies, laws and procedures of the
Central Government, State Government and sub-State
Authorities in so far as the competition dimensions are
concerned with focus on greater reliance on well-functioning
markets,
 ensure competition in regulated sectors and to ensure
institutional mechanism for synergized relationship between
and among the sectoral regulators and/or the CCI and prevent
jurisdictional grid locks,
 strive for single national market as fragmented markets are
impediments to competition, and
 ensure that consumers enjoy greater benefits in terms of wider
choices and better quality of goods and services at competitive
prices.
Comparison- India, USA & EU.
As opposed to the Indian framework comprising single legislation
and single agency, the US enforcement framework comprises
multiple agencies and legislation. In the US, two federal agencies
bear the major responsibility of enforcing , the Antitrust Division
of the US Department of Justice (“DoJ”) and the Federal Trade
Commission (“FTC”). The former is part of the executive branch of
the government and the latter is an independent administrative
agency, similar to the CCI. The Sherman Act is the oldest federal
antitrust statute, enacted in 1890 and deals primarily with anti-
competitive agreements and monopoly exercised by firms. The
Clayton Act, 1914 deals with specific business practices including
mergers, price discrimination and tying, exclusive supply etc. The
DoJ and FTC independently enforce the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act. However, if the violation entails criminal prosecution,
then the DoJ has the exclusive authority to prosecute.
 The EU competition law framework originates from
the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union
(“Treaty”). The Treaty covers a wide variety of subjects;
 however the substantial legal development has come
in the area of competition law covered by Articles 101
and 102. The Treaty is generally applicable to
agreements and conduct between the EU member
states through Law trade practices Appellate antitrust
laws. each constituent state of the EU also has their
respective national competition agencies and
legislations
 The Treaty did not specify the institutional structure for
the competition law enforcement and the same was
framed by the European Council (“Council”). The
Council entrusted the European Commission (“EC”) with
the duty to ensure compliance with the Treaty and
enforcing, implementing and developing the European
community’s competition law and policies. The Indian
competition law framework is similar to the European
enforcement structure and the provision of the Act as
well as the powers and functions of the CCI have been
broadly fashioned on the applicable provisions of the
Treaty and the powers of EC. Though the Act has much
in common with the US and EU enforcement structure,
yet the systems differ significantly in the matter of levels
and quality of enforcement.
What is Competition Policy
Government measures that directly affect the behaviour
of enterprises and structure of the Industry.

Laws which govern the extent and ability to which

commercial entities can compete.

Competition Law is a tool to implement Competition

policy .
Purpose of competition law
 Prevent competing firms from colluding.

 Prevent firms with ‘dominant position’ from misusing

power.

 Check/stop mergers and acquisitions that would

reduce competition.
WHAT IS COMPETITION ACT 2002?
 The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse
of dominant position by enterprises and regulates
combinations (acquisition, acquiring of control and
Merger and acquisition), which causes or likely to
cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition
within India.
Objectives
 Establish a Commission to prevent practices having
adverse effect on competition.
 Promote and sustain competition in markets.
 Protect the interests of consumers.
 Ensure freedom of trade in the Indian markets Ambit.
 Regulates anti-competitive agreements.
 Regulates abuse of dominant position.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF
INDIA
 Competition commission of India is a body of
government of India responsible for enforcing the
competition act 2002 through India and to prevent
activities that have an appreciable adverse effect on
competition in India . It was established on 14 oct
2003. it became fully functional in May 2009
OBJECTIVES
 The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has been
entrusted with the following tasks –
 To promote and then sustain an enabling competition
culture through engagement and enforcement which
would inspire businesses to be fair, competitive and
innovative.
 To enhance the consumer welfare
 To support economic growth.
 The Competition Commission of India aims to establish a
robust competitive environment through proactive
engagement with all the stakeholders including the
consumers, industry, government as well as international
jurisdictions.