प्रतिस्पर्धा अधिनियम 2002 के मुख्य प्रावधानों का विश्लेषणात्मक अध्ययन

Anjay Kumar; Ajay Sonawane

doi:10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.3174

Authors

Anjay Kumar Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
Ajay Sonawane Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i1.2024.3174

Keywords:

Competition Law, AAEC, Dominant Position, Merger, MRTP

Abstract [English]

Change is the law of nature; therefore law has to change with the changing needs of the society. A law once enacted has to respond to the needs of the time. Time changes, needs changes, but very often the laws lag behind. It is the duty of the State to keep the existing laws updated. The old laws have to be altered, amended or replaced, while at times new laws have to be created to replace the existing laws. Competition law (Competition Act 2002) is enacted to replace the MRTP Act, 1969. Competition is inherent in human nature and therefore no question destroys the competition. Roots of competition law are very deeply rooted. Competition is a process that requires numerous participants and decentralisation. Competition law has been described as the Magna Carta of free enterprise. Competition law is very important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free enterprise system. Competition law is required to provide a regulative force which establishes effective control over economic activities. This paper aimed at the study of the Competition Act, 2002 and MRTP Act, 1969 enactments, and comparison between them along substantive provisions of law in the Competition Act, 2002 i.., Agreement having Appreciable Adverse Effect on competition (AAEC), Abuse of Dominant Position and Regulation of Combination.

Abstract [Hindi]

परिवर्तन प्रकृति का नियम है; इसलिए समाज की बदलती जरूरतों के साथ कानून को बदलना होगा। एक बार कानून बनने के बाद उसे समय की जरूरतों का जवाब देना होता है। समय बदलता है, जरूरतें बदलती हैं, लेकिन अक्सर कानून पीछे रह जाते हैं। मौजूदा कानूनों को अद्यतन रखना राज्य का कर्तव्य है। पुराने कानूनों को बदलना, संशोधित करना या प्रतिस्थापित करना पड़ता है, जबकि कभी-कभी मौजूदा कानूनों को बदलने के लिए नए कानून बनाने पड़ते हैं। प्रतिस्पर्धा कानून (प्रतिस्पर्धा अधिनियम 2002) एमआरटीपी अधिनियम, 1969 को प्रतिस्थापित करने के लिए अधिनियमित किया गया है। प्रतिस्पर्धा मानव स्वभाव में अंतर्निहित है और इसलिए प्रतिस्पर्धा को नष्ट करने का कोई सवाल ही नहीं है। प्रतिस्पर्धा कानून की जड़ें बहुत गहराई तक जमी हुई हैं। प्रतिस्पर्धा एक ऐसी प्रक्रिया है जिसमें कई प्रतिभागियों और विकेंद्रीकरण की आवश्यकता होती है। प्रतिस्पर्धा कानून को मुक्त उद्यम का मैग्ना कार्टा बताया गया है। प्रतिस्पर्धा कानून आर्थिक स्वतंत्रता और हमारी मुक्त उद्यम प्रणाली के संरक्षण के लिए बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है। प्रतिस्पर्धा कानून को एक नियामक शक्ति प्रदान करने की आवश्यकता है जो आर्थिक गतिविधियों पर प्रभावी नियंत्रण स्थापित करे। इस पेपर का उद्देश्य प्रतिस्पर्धा अधिनियम, 2002 और एमआरटीपी अधिनियम, 1969 अधिनियमों का अध्ययन करना और प्रतिस्पर्धा अधिनियम, 2002 में कानून के मूल प्रावधानों के साथ उनके बीच तुलना करना है, प्रतिस्पर्धा पर सराहनीय प्रतिकूल प्रभाव वाले समझौते (एएईसी), दुरुपयोग। प्रमुख स्थिति और संयोजन का विनियमन।

References

See the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Competition Act, 2002.

Competition Act, 2002

Competition Act, 2002, Section 3

Competition Act, 2002, Section 4

Sections 5 and 6 of the Competition Act, 2002

Anti-Competitive Agreements (ACA), Prohibition of Abuse of Dominant Position (AD).

Mergers and Amalgamations, Acquisitions and Takeovers (MAAT)

Horizontal Agreements: These are between competitors at the same level of production, supply, distribution, etc. They are considered illegal. Examples: cartels, bid rigging, collusive bidding, market sharing, etc.

Vertical Agreements: Vertical agreements are between parties at different stages of production, supply, distribution, etc. They are not considered illegal; they are subject to the rule of reason. Examples: tie-in arrangements, exclusive supply/distribution agreements, refusal to deal, resale price maintenance.

Clause (2) of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002

Section 2(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 states that "agreement" includes any arrangement, understanding, or collective action—

(i) whether such arrangement, understanding, or action is formal or in writing; or

(ii) whether such arrangement, understanding, or action is enforceable by legal proceedings;

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. US, 246 US 231

Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Manufacturers Association, (2002) 111 Comp. Issue No. 617 (SC)

(a) creating barriers to new entrants in a market; (b) driving out existing competitors from the market; (c) restricting competition by impeding entry into the market; (d) the accrual of benefits to consumers; (e) the improvement of the production or distribution of goods or the provision of services; (f) the promotion of technological, scientific and economic development through the production or distribution of goods or the provision of services.

Section 2(c) "cartel" includes an association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders or service providers who, by agreement among themselves, limit, control or attempt to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or trade in, goods or the provision of services.

(1994 AIR 988: 1993 SCR (3) 128)

Section 2(1) states, "Person includes an individual; an association or body of Hindu undivided persons, a company; a firm; an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated in India or outside India; any corporation established by or under any Central, State or Provincial Act or a Government company incorporated in or under section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); any body incorporated under the laws of any country outside India; a cooperative society registered under any law relating to cooperative societies, which does not fall under any of the preceding sub-sections;

Competition Act, 2002, Section 4(1)

imposes unfair or discriminatory conditions or prices, limits or restricts the production of goods or provision of services or market for: technological or scientific developments relating to goods or services or, in practice or usages This includes conditions that result in denial of market access, not conditional contracts. Related to the subject matter of such contracts; or using a dominant position in one related market to enter or protect another related market.

Competition Act, 2002, Section 6(2)

Competition Act, 2002, Section 6(2A)

Competition Act, 2002, Section 6(3)

Competition Act, 2002, Section 6(4)

Competition Act, 2002, Section 6(5)

Competition Act, 2002, Section 6(1)

Competition Act, 2002, Section 2(r), (s), (t)

T. Ramappa, Competition Law Policy, Issues and Developments in India 231 (Oxford University Press New Delhi 3rd ed.) Standard Oil Company of California and Others v. U.S. 293

Competition Act, 2002, Section 49(3)

Kundu, Abhipsita, 'Owners' Rights vs. Owners' Monopoly: The IPR Competition Interface'. CNLU Law Journal, Vol. 3 (2013): 60

IPR laws create monopolistic rights, while competition law counters or counters them.

World Bank: Glossary of Industrial Organization, Economics, and Competition Law.

T. Ramappa, Competition Law Policy, Issues, and Developments in India 93 (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2014)

Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. US [1911] 221 US 1, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. US [1918] 246 US (1918), Telco Ltd. v. Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements (1997) 2 SCC 55

These include tenders submitted as a result of any joint activity or agreement.

Competition Act, 2002 S. 3(3)

Dry Stone Pipe & Steel v. U.S., 175 U.S. 211 (1899), Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, Jefferson Paris Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984)

Competition Act 2002, Section 19(3)