The Competition Act, 2002

Last updated

The Competition Act, 2002
Emblem of India.svg
Parliament of India
  • An Act to give, keeping in view of the economic development of the country, for the establishment of a Commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interests of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets, in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Citation Act No. 12 of 2003
Enacted by Parliament of India
Assented to13 January 2003
Commenced31 March 2003
Introduced by Arun Jaitley
Repeals
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
Status: In force

The Competition Act, 2002 was enacted by the Parliament of India and governs Indian competition law. It replaced the archaic Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Under this legislation, the Competition Commission of India was established to prevent the activities that adversely affected competition in India. [1] [2] This act extends to whole of India.

Contents

It is a tool to implement and enforce competition policy and to prevent and punish anti-competitive business practices by firms and unnecessary Government interference in the market. Competition law is equally applicable on written as well as oral agreements and arrangements between or among enterprises and persons.

The Competition Act, 2002 was amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 and again by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009.

The Act establishes a Commission which is duty bound to protect the interests of free and fair competition (including the process of competition), and as a consequence, protect the interests of consumers. Broadly, the commission's duty is:-

In addition to this, the Competition Act envisages its enforcement with the aid of mutual international support and enforcement network across the world.

History

The Government of India in April 1964 appointed the Monopolies Inquiry Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice K. C Das Gupta, a judge of the Supreme Court, to inquire into the extent and effect of concentration of economic power in private hands and prevalence of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices in important sectors of economic activity other than agriculture. [3]

To regulate advertising, in 1984, Parliament inserted a chapter on unfair trade practices in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. [4]

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission was constituted in the year 1970. [5]

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 had its genesis in the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in the Constitution of India. [6] It received the assent of the President of India on 27 December 1969. [7] The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act was intended to curb the rise of concentration of wealth in a few hands and of monopolistic practices. [8] It was repealed in September 2009. The Act has been succeeded by The Competition Act, 2002.[ citation needed ]

The Competition Bill, 2001 was introduced in Lok Sabha by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on 6 August 2001. [9]

Definitions

Salient Features

Anti-Competitive Agreements

Enterprises, persons or associations of enterprises or persons, including cartel, shall not enter into agreements in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which cause or are likely to cause an "appreciable adverse impact" on competition in India. Such agreements would consequently be considered void. Agreements which would be considered to have an appreciable adverse impact would be those agreements which-

Types of agreement

A 'horizontal agreement' is an agreement for co-operation between two or more competing businesses operating at the same level in the market. A vertical agreement is an agreement between firms at different levels of the supply chain. For instance, a manufacturer of consumer electronics might have a vertical agreement with a retailer according to which the latter would promote their products in return for lower prices.

Abuse of dominant position

There shall be an abuse of dominant position if an enterprise imposes directly or indirectly unfair or discriminatory conditions in purchase or sale of goods or services or restricts production or technical development or create hindrance in entry of new operators to the prejudice of consumers. The provisions relating to abuse of dominant position require determination of dominance in the relevant market. Dominant position enables an enterprise to operate independently or affect competitors by action [14]

Combinations

The Act is designed to regulate the operation and activities of combinations, a term, which contemplates acquisition, mergers or amalgamations. Combination that exceeds the threshold limits specified in the Act in terms of assets or turnover, which causes or is likely to cause adverse impact on competition within the relevant market in India, can be scrutinized by the commission.

Competition Commission of India

Competition Commission of India [15] is a body corporate and independent entity possessing a common seal with the power to enter into contracts and to sue in its name. It is to consist of a chairperson, who is to be assisted by a minimum of two, and a maximum of six, other members. [16] [17] It is the duty of the commission to eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade in the markets of India. The commission is also required to give opinion on competition issues on a reference received from a statutory authority established under any law and to undertake competition advocacy, create public awareness and impart training on competition issues.

Commission has the power to inquire into unfair agreements or abuse of dominant position or combinations taking place outside India but having adverse effect on competition in India, if any of the circumstances exists:

To deal with cross border issues, Commission is empowered to enter into any Memorandum of Understanding or arrangement with any foreign agency of any foreign country with the prior approval of Central Government.

Review of orders of Commission

Any person aggrieved by an order of the commission can apply to the commission for review of its order within thirty days from the date of the order. Commission may entertain a review application after the expiry of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the application in time. No order shall be modified or set aside without giving an opportunity of being heard to the person in whose favour the order is given and the Director General where he was a party to the proceedings. [18]

Appeal

Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Commission may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the commission. No appeal shall lie against any decision or order of the commission made with the consent of the parties. [19]

Penalty

If any person fails to comply with the orders or directions of the Commission shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ₹ 1 lakh for each day during which such non compliance occurs, subject to a maximum of ₹ 10 crore. [20]

If any person does not comply with the orders or directions issued, or fails to pay the fine imposed under this section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which will extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ₹ 25 crores or with both.

Section 44 provides that if any person, being a party to a combination makes a statement which is false in any material particular or knowing it to be false or omits to state any material particular knowing it to be material, such person shall be liable to a penalty which shall not be less than rupees fifty lakhs but which may extend to rupees one crore, as may be determined by the Commission.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce and consequently prohibits unfair monopolies. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States antitrust law</span> American legal system intended to promote competition among businesses

In the United States, antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that regulate the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies. The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels, and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization.

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power. Competition allows companies to compete in order for products and services to improve; promote innovation; and provide more choices for consumers. In order to obtain greater profits, some large enterprises take advantage of market power to hinder survival of new entrants. Anti-competitive behavior can undermine the efficiency and fairness of the market, leaving consumers with little choice to obtain a reasonable quality of service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union competition law</span> Economic law of the European Union

In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.

Predatory pricing is a commercial pricing strategy which involves the use of large scale undercutting to eliminate competition. This is where an industry dominant firm with sizable market power will deliberately reduce the prices of a product or service to loss-making levels to attract all consumers and create a monopoly. For a period of time, the prices are set unrealistically low to ensure competitors are unable to effectively compete with the dominant firm without making substantial loss. The aim is to force existing or potential competitors within the industry to abandon the market so that the dominant firm may establish a stronger market position and create further barriers to entry. Once competition has been driven from the market, consumers are forced into a monopolistic market where the dominant firm can safely increase prices to recoup its losses.

Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. Competition law is implemented through public and private enforcement. It is also known as antitrust law, anti-monopoly law, and trade practices law; the act of pushing for antitrust measures or attacking monopolistic companies is commonly known as trust busting.

The Competition Commission was a non-departmental public body responsible for investigating mergers, markets and other enquiries related to regulated industries under competition law in the United Kingdom. It was a competition regulator under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). It was tasked with ensuring healthy competition between companies in the UK for the ultimate benefit of consumers and the economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competition Act 1998</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Competition Act 1998 is the current major source of competition law in the United Kingdom, along with the Enterprise Act 2002. The act provides an updated framework for identifying and dealing with restrictive business practices and abuse of a dominant market position.

In United States antitrust law, monopolization is illegal monopoly behavior. The main categories of prohibited behavior include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. Monopolization is a federal crime under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It has a specific legal meaning, which is parallel to the "abuse" of a dominant position in EU competition law, under TFEU article 102. It is also illegal in Australia under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). Section 2 of the Sherman Act states that any person "who shall monopolize. .. any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations shall be deemed guilty of a felony." Section 2 also forbids "attempts to monopolize" and "conspiracies to monopolize". Generally this means that corporations may not act in ways that have been identified as contrary to precedent cases.

Though in general, each business may decide with whom they wish to transact, there are some situations when a refusal to deal may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. The unlawful behaviour may involve two or more companies refusing to use, buy from or otherwise deal with a person or business, such as a competitor, for the purpose of inflicting some economic loss on the target or otherwise force them out of the market. A refusal to deal is forbidden in some countries which have restricted market economies, though the actual acts or situations which may constitute such unacceptable behaviour may vary significantly between jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ministry of Corporate Affairs</span> Indian government ministry

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is an Indian government ministry primarily concerned with administration of the Companies Act 2013, the Companies Act 1956, the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The history of competition law refers to attempts by governments to regulate competitive markets for goods and services, leading up to the modern competition or antitrust laws around the world today. The earliest records traces back to the efforts of Roman legislators to control price fluctuations and unfair trade practices. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, kings and queens repeatedly cracked down on monopolies, including those created through state legislation. The English common law doctrine of restraint of trade became the precursor to modern competition law. This grew out of the codifications of United States antitrust statutes, which in turn had considerable influence on the development of European Community competition laws after the Second World War. Increasingly, the focus has moved to international competition enforcement in a globalised economy.

United Kingdom competition law is affected by both British and European elements. The Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002 are the most important statutes for cases with a purely national dimension. However, prior to Brexit, if the effect of a business' conduct would reach across borders, the European Commission has competence to deal with the problems, and exclusively EU law would apply. Even so, the pre-Brexit section 60 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that UK rules are to be applied in line with European jurisprudence. Like all competition law, that in the UK has three main tasks.

Consumer protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services, and the public, against unfair practices in the marketplace. Consumer protection measures are often established by law. Such laws are intended to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or specified unfair practices to gain an advantage over competitors or to mislead consumers. They may also provide additional protection for the general public which may be impacted by a product even when they are not the direct purchaser or consumer of that product. For example, government regulations may require businesses to disclose detailed information about their products—particularly in areas where public health or safety is an issue, such as with food or automobiles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Protection Act, 1986</span> Consumer protection legislation in India

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (COPRA) was an Act by the Parliament of India elected to protect the interests of consumers in India. It was replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It was made for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer's grievances and matters connected with it. The act was passed in Assembly in October 1986 and came into force on December 24, 1986.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is the chief national competition regulator in India. It is a statutory body within the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and is responsible for enforcing the Competition Act, 2002 to promote competition and prevent activities that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. The CCI looks into cases and investigates them if the same has a negative impact on competition.

The Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) (Urdu: کمپیٹیشن کمیشن آف پاکستان), formerly Monopoly Control Authority, is an independent agency quasi-regulatory, quasi-judicial body of the Government of Pakistan for the enforcement of economic competition laws in Pakistan that helps ensure healthy competition. It was created in 2007 by the President of Pakistan through the promulgation of the Competition Ordinance, 2007 replacing Monopoly Control Authority, later Parliament of Pakistan passed Competition Act, 2010 to give legal cover and powers to the commission. The Commission was established to provide for free competition in all spheres of commercial and economic activity to enhance economic efficiency and to protect consumers from anti competitive behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philippine Competition Commission</span> Philippine independent commission

The Philippine Competition Commission (PhCC) is an independent, quasi-judicial body formed to implement the Philippine Competition Act (Republic Act No. 10667). The PhCC aims to promote and maintain market competition within the Philippines by regulating anti-competition behavior. The main role of the PhCC is to promote economic efficiency within the Philippine economy, ensuring fair and healthy market competition.

Bangladesh Competition Commission is a Bangladesh government statutory body responsible for encouraging competition in the market. Pradip Ranjan Chakraborty, former Secretary of the Planning Division is the Chairperson of Bangladesh Competition Commission. He joined this position on 8 November 2022.

Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC and Ors. is a 2019 court case in which Google and Google India Private Limited were accused of abuse of dominance in the Android operating system in India. The Competition Commission of India found that Google abused its dominant position by requiring device manufacturers wishing to pre-install apps to adhere to a compatibility standard on Android.

References

  1. "Sub-section 1 of Section 7 of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
  2. "CCI will be in full operation next year". The Hindu. 11 September 2007. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  3. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Georg Thieme Verlag. 1970.
  4. Pathak, Akhileshwar (18 April 2016). "New law, statutory body imperative to foster fair trade practices in India". Livemint .
  5. Singh, Ravi Karan (1 January 1989). Restrictive Trade Practices and Public Interest. Mittal Publications. ISBN   9788170991724.
  6. "THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1969 POLICY, PROVISIONS AND PERFORMANCE" (PDF).
  7. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Georg Thieme Verlag. 1970.
  8. Legal Aspects of Business. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. 1 January 2013. ISBN   9781259026584.
  9. "Competition Bill introduced", The Hindu , 6 August 2001[ dead link ]
  10. "Section 2(a) of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  11. "Section 2(c) of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  12. "Section 4 (explanation) of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  13. "Section 4 (explanation) of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  14. "Section 4 of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  15. "About CCI | Competition Commission of India". www.cci.gov.in. 24 June 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  16. "Organogram | Competition Commission of India". www.cci.gov.in. 6 July 2015. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  17. "'CCI to act as nodal agency to check anti-competitive practices'". The Hindu Business Line. Retrieved 19 November 2015.
  18. "Section 37 of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  19. "Section 40 of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.
  20. "Section 43 of Competition Act 2002". Indian Kanoon.