Our Blog

This is an optional subtitle.

Anti Competitive Agreements In The Competition Act 2002

The Competition Act 2002 was passed by the Indian Parliament to establish a Commission to protect the interests of consumers and ensure free trade in Indian markets. Prohibition of agreements or practices that restrict free trade and competition between two enterprises in order to prohibit the abusive situation of the market monopoly, to offer the entrepreneur the opportunity to compete in the market, to have the international support and enforcement network throughout the world, to prevent anti-competitive practices and to promote fair and healthy competition in the market. But before the Competition Act, there was the MRTP Act, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, which ensured the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few wealthy people. The law should prohibit monopolistic and restrictive business practices. It extended to all of India, with the exception of Jammu and Kashmir. The objectives of this law were: # To ensure that the functioning of the economic system does not lead to the concentration of economic power in the hands of the less wealthy. # Provide for the control of monopolies and prohibit monopolistic and restrictive business practices. Difference between the MRTP Act and the Competition Act:- 1. Significance – MRTP Act is the first competition law passed in India to cover rules and rules relating to unfair trading practices. However, the Competition Act is introduced in order to promote and curb competition in the economy and to guarantee freedom of business. 2. Nature – The MRTP law has a reforming character.

While the competition law has a criminal character. 3. Penalty – No penalty for violation under the MRTP Act. While there is a sanction in the competition law. 4. Objective – MRTP Act monopoly controlled on the market. The purpose of the Competition Act is to promote competition. Cartel is a secret and not public, they work under the skin. In the case of the Indian Foundation of Transport Research and Training against Shri Bal Malkait Singh and Ors[3]- AIMTC had ordered its members to increase truck freight uniformly (by -15%) due to the increase in the price of diesel, which harmed consumers and caused a CEAA in the market. CCI Order: The similarity of the press articles of the AIMTC President ™ or his spokesman indicated that there had been a meeting between aimTC members in order to set/increase freight rates due to the increase in diesel prices.

The ICC also found that the agreement had adverse effects on competition. . . .