Competion _history

8/3/2019 Competion _history

1/18

HISTORY OFCOMPETITION LAWIN INDIA


2/18

left the Indianeconomy crippled.

left the Indianeconomy crippled.

British rule inIndia

FIGHTINGECONOMICCOMPETITION

FIGHTINGECONOMICCOMPETITION

After

Independence dream destination forcelebrating theadvantages ofGlobalization andLiberalization

dream destination forcelebrating theadvantages ofGlobalization andLiberalization

Situation


3/18

INDIANECONOMY

Thetechnologicaland scientific

capabilities were

poor

industrializationwas limited and

lopsided

Agriculturalsector -feudal

and semi-feudalinstitutions,

resulting intolow productivity

Poverty andunemployment

Neitherresources norskilled work

force


4/18

Mainconcern

Industry

NarasimhaGovt.

Unemployment poverty, agriculture-5 year plan-

industry - 5 year plan 2

Labour laws-

Bt concern was welfare ofpeople and growth of nation asa whole- strengthen nation

Entry exit barriers

Liberalisation-

Market open to foreigncountries

competition


5/18


6/18

MIC

MIC appointed under Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952

Scope of inquiry - extent and effect of concentration of economic powers in private hands.

MIC to suggest legislation and other measures to protect essential public interest and alsosuggest agency for enforcement of the legislation


7/18

Adverse socialeffects ofeconomicconcentration

Governmentpolicies one ofthe main causesof economicconcentration

New technology

scale ofproduction

War efforts ofIndia

Political largesse Large number ofindustries hadeither singlesupplier or onesupplier havinglarge share of

market. Collusivebehaviour incertain sectors

Entry barriercreated by privateplayers

Evidence ofpredatory pricing

Many publicsector enterprisesenjoyedmonopoly

Many restrictivetrade practices

(RTP) prevalent

FINDINGIGS OFMIC


8/18

Setting up public sector enterprises in sectors which have littlecompetition

Proposed an autonomous Commission headed by a Judge to

implement a new law-( investigative + punitive )

Scope of merger control limited to merger involving a dominantenterprise (at least 1/3 of share in production/ supply/distribution)

All proposals for expansion by dominant enterprises to be approved bythe proposed

IPRs to be under the purview of the proposed law.

Recommendations of MIC


9/18

SACHAARCOMMISSION-

1977

Reviewed theworking ofMRTPC

during the period1970-77

Found that the

actual role ofMRTPC was limited

and mostlyadvisory

The Government

had not made useof the expertise few references toMRTPC for opinion


10/18

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SACHARCOMMITTEE Definition of dominant enterprise to be changed enterprises with market

share to be termed dominant Harmonization of definition of goods in theMRTP Act with the Sale ofGoods Act Inter-connected undertakings concept to be introduced to theMRTP Act Government Undertakings to be brought under purview ofMRTPC Compulsory reference by the Central Government onMTPs toMRTPC AllM&As to be referred for advise ofMRTPC, if the Central Government sodesires. Division of enterprises-MRTPC to pass final orders if the Central Governmentreferred the matter to it. Certain Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) like misleading advertisements to be

inserted in the Law Power to compensate against injury Power to grant interim injunction Power of contempt Investigating arm to be provided more teeth by powersof conducting down raids and limited Civil Court powers


11/18

1984 AMENDMENT TO MRTP ACT

Many deviations from the recommendations of the Sachar Committee

Concept of deemed illegality to host of trade practices introduced

Exclusionary behaviour, tie in sale, re-sale price maintenance, bid rigging, allocation of

market, boycott predatory pricing etc.

Registration of agreements by dominant enterprises made mandatory

Mis-representation as well as misleading or disparaging advertisement included

Provisions prohibiting UTPs introduced


12/18

1991 AMENDMENT TO THE MRTP ACT

Provisions dealing with monopolistic enterprises seeking prior Government approval

deleted

Government Undertakings, Government Corporations and Government owned

Companies brought under the purview of theMRTP Act by notification

Granting of injunction without issue of notice to the effective parties

PROVISIONS IN PRESENT MRTP ACT

Has jurisdiction in RTP & UTP 14 practices are deemed RTP

MTP if referred or suo moto, but can only recommend to Government

M& A were deleted in 1991

Can grant temporary injunction

Has powers of contempt

For disobedience,MRTPC must complain to criminal court


13/18

RAGHAVAN COMMITTEE A high level Committee on Competition Policyand Law set up in 1999. recommending a suitable legislation framework which could either be a new law orappropriate amendments to theMRTP Act

FINDINGS OF THE RAGHAVAN COMMITTEE

Word competition used sparsely in theMRTP Act only twice Absence of precise definition e.g. Cartels Inadequate to deal with implementation of the WTO Agreements No specific powers under theMRTP Act to deal with mergers

Inadequate in dealing with anti-competitive practices as in other modern competitionlaw Expedient to have a new Competition Law


14/18

COMPETITTION ACT- 2002


15/18

(as indicated in Preamble)

keeping in view the economic development of the country,

to prevent practices having appreciable adverse effect on competition;

to promote and sustain competition in trade and industry:

to protect the interest of consumers;

to ensure freedom of trade carried on by the participants in markets in India;

Objectives to be achieved through the establishment of the Competition Commission of

India (CCI).

OBJECTIVE


16/18

AMENDMENT OF 2006


17/18


18/18

THANK YOU- by

Aruna

Competion _history

Documents

Transcript of Competion _history