Analysis of Anti-Trust Laws
India is one of the world's largest and most dynamic markets, making it difficult to strike a balance between consumer and producer interests. At this stage, the Antitrust laws or the Competition Act of 2002 come into play, which deal with anticompetitive trade activities such as anticompetitive agreements, enterprise abuse of dominant position, and regulation of acquisitions and mergers.
After it was understood that market rivalry is crucial for all consumers, producers, and the economy as a whole, it became even more critical to keep a watch on and eliminate any attempt at subversion of free trade, abuse of market dominance, and competition. It is widely accepted that competition regulations are necessary to ensure high-quality goods and services at reasonable rates.
Also Check: Judicial Separation And Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Law | Grounds Of Divorce And Judicial Separation
Agreement Against Competitive Advantage
Anticompetitive agreements are agreements made between rivals to prohibit, limit, or distort competition. 'No enterprise or association of enterprises, or person or association of persons, shall enter into any agreement in respect of the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition, or control of goods, or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India,' according to Chapter 2, Section 3(1).
The act proclaims any such agreement to be null and void. The agreement does not have to be written; oral understandings are also protected by the law. Horizontal and vertical anti-competitive agreements are the two types. The level of the entities participating distinguishes Horizontal and Vertical anti-competitive agreements. According to Section 3(3), horizontal agreements are those in which companies involved in comparable types of trade practices establish agreements such as price fixing, supply or production limits, market allocation, and so on.
Such agreements benefit just the producer and are harmful to consumers. In this situation, anticompetitive circumstances are often produced by competitors communicating price-related information, though the interchange of other forms of information such as strategic information, business plans, capacity details, and so on can also be problematic.
Vertical agreements, according to section 3(4), are those signed between entities at distinct phases of production. For example, between the producer and the supplier. The act declares void agreements such as tie-in agreements, exclusive supply agreements, refusal to trade, and resale price maintenance.
According to Section 3(4), the following are essential ingredients:
There must be an agreement between businesses or individuals.
The agreement's parties must not be at the same level of output.
The arrangement should or is expected to have a negative impact on competition.
Dominant Position Abuse
According to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, "dominant position" means a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in the relevant market in India that allows it to operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the market, or affects its competitors or consumers in its favor.
It is also consistent because the statute does not ban having a dominant position but rather prohibits abusing it. Prior to the 2007 revisions, the Act was only applicable to a single firm and not to a group of enterprises. The market share, size and resources of the enterprise, competitors, economic power, the level of entrance and exit restrictions in the market, and other factors all contribute to a firm's dominance in the market.
It cannot be decided merely on the basis of the firm's market share, as this is influenced by a variety of circumstances.
It might be taken that the term does not require any numerical value, such as a percentage of market share, to describe dominance and merely refers to the entity's position of power in the relevant market.
Abuse is said to occur when a dominating entity utilizes its position to exclude or exploit others. Abuse of dominating position includes enforcing unfair terms or prices, limiting production and development, denying market access, and utilizing a dominant position in one relevant market to obtain an advantage in another relevant market, among other things.
India's Competition Law Development
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 came before the Competition Act of 2002, also known as the Anti-Trust laws (MRTP). The Monopolies Inquiry Commission was established in 1964 under the chairmanship of Supreme Court Justice K.C. Das Gupta. In 1970, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission was established. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 is based on state policy Directive principles.
Its goal was to limit the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. It had to be replaced by The Competition Act, 2002 because it was unable to deal with the challenges that India faced as an expanding economy. The deed was non-dynamic and hazy in nature. The MRTP Act included unjust categorization, in that it classified any enterprise with assets worth more than 20 crores as a Dominant firm, which was inappropriate because it was based exclusively on the enterprise's market dominance.
Another disadvantage was that it was vague; it did not specify which activities would be restricted and so constitute an offense under the act. It also encompassed all forms of probable offenses, resulting in a diversity of interpretations by the courts, causing the essence of the legislation to be lost.
Another big disadvantage was that it viewed dominance to be harmful in and of itself, which was not the intention, but in actuality, misuse of a dominant position should be deemed harmful. Following the identification of inadequacies in the act, various revisions were enacted, including the 1991 amendment, which made it applicable to public sector organizations and government companies.
However, it was later apparent that, due to several flaws, new legislation was required, coinciding with the formation of the Liberalization, Privatisation, and Globalisation (LPG) program. To build the groundwork for a more healthy and competitive market, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act was repealed and replaced by The Competition Act, 2002, which was revised in 2007 and 2009.
Administration and Enforcement
The Competition Commission of India is the statutory authority in charge of administering and enforcing the Competition Act, 2002. It investigates instances and files complaints against businesses and individuals that violate the legislation.
The commission was formed on October 14, 2003. It is made up of a chairperson and no fewer than two and no more than six members. A few important cases adjudicated by the Competition Commission of India include one from 2014, in which the CCI fined Google Rs. 10 million for failing to comply with the director general's directives seeking information and documentation.
Also in December 2021, CCI rescinded its permission of Amazon's investment in a Future group firm, which had previously gotten approval in 2019, because it was alleged that Amazon disguised the scope and completeness of its stake when seeking approval. And there are plenty such notable examples.
Conclusion
The antitrust laws of India have seen significant changes over the years, and they are now performing their purpose in the post-liberalized economy, where it is recognized that competition is the lifeblood of the economy or markets. The laws have shown to be advantageous in recent cases as a result of constant adjustments to the legislation in conformity with recent socioeconomic and legal changes in the country.
The amendments of 2007 and 2009, as well as the move to the Competition Act, 2002 from the MRTP Act, 1969, clearly demonstrate the dynamic nature of the legislation, which is one of its most distinguishing qualities. It is one of the most distinguishing features since, in order to defend and preserve the rights and welfare of consumers, legislation must keep pace with societal innovations and undergo equal development.
As a result, it can be stated that antitrust rules are only sufficient when they are competent to deal with contemporary consumer difficulties. In the current context, when E-commerce giants are ruling the market and there is a paradigm shift in the way businesses are managed, it is critical to keep a careful eye on them to ensure consumer welfare protection.
This worry has resulted in another amendment bill, which can be viewed as a positive step because it tries to address Section 5 of the act, which deals with company mergers and acquisitions. The decision was made because many digital mergers and acquisitions with minimal transaction values are frequently not reported to the CCI.
The bill also includes provisions to tighten the noose around anti-competitive practices, as well as modifications to Sections 48 and 41 pertaining to the penalties and authorities stated in the act. It is expected to be considered during the Parliament's forthcoming winter session. The bill's passage will be a significant step toward making antitrust rules more consumer-friendly.
Comments
Post a Comment