Introduction

In general usage, competition in the market is seeking buyers for sellers regardless patronage to maximize profit (or other business objectives). A buyer wants to buy a product at a price that maximizes its benefits whereas the seller prefers to sell the product in a price that maximizes its profits. Competition makes companies more efficient and offers greater choice for consumers at lower prices. This ensures optimal utilization of available resources. It also enhances consumer welfare, since consumers buy more products of better quality at lower prices.

Fair competition is an advantage for consumers, manufacturers / sellers, and ultimately for society as a whole, because the economic growth. Taking the view that the unfair competition means acceptance of practices such as secret price-fixing, deliberate reduction of production in order to increase prices, the creation of barriers to market access, the allocation of markets, tie-up selling, predatory pricing and discriminatory prices.

India has been very conscious about the competition on the market and was aware of the restriction of monopolies and restrictive legislation under Trade Practices Commission, the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is the first production, with the competition and entered into force on 1 June 1970.

With the advent of liberalization in economic policies and growth in the market, the Indian government to implement the Monopolies Commission & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and it is missing in the handle and the teeth of competition policy is formulated. Competition policy is defined as the government policies that affect the behavior of firms and the structure of the industry in terms of promoting efficiency and the maximization of welfare.

There are two elements of competition policy: First, a series of measures, such as liberalized trade policy, FDI policy, relaxed, de-regulation, etc., the competition in the markets. Secondly, the legislation to prevent anti-competitive practices with minimal government intervention

The government had a committee in October 1999 to examine the existing MRTP Act, the focus of the law by restricting the monopolies to promoting competition and to a modern competition law. Following the recommendations of the Committee, the Competition Act, 2002, in force on 13 January 2003. The objectives of the Competition Act are to prevent anticompetitive practices, promoting and maintaining competition, protecting the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade. This Act provides for the different messages for each of the provisions of the law effectively, including repeal of MRTP Act and the dissolution of the MRTP Commission

The aim of the Act is to abuses of dominant position by an anti-competitive trade agreements. Here dominance refers to a position of strength, which a dominant company, regardless of competition or the impact on competitors or consumers or the market in their favor. Abuse of a dominant position to prevent a fair competition between firms, exploits consumers and makes it difficult for other players to compete with the dominant companies of the merits. Abuse of dominant position and imposing unfair conditions or price, predatory pricing, limiting production / market, the barriers to entry and applying dissimilar conditions to similar transactions. The agreement includes an agreement, understanding or concerted action between the parties. There must be no written or formal or intended to be legally enforceable. An anti-competitive agreement is an agreement with appreciable negative impact on competition. Anticompetitive agreements,

• Agreement on the fixing of prices
• Offer rigging or collusion alerts
• conditional purchase / sale (tie-in rule)
• exclusive supply / distribution agreement
• agreement on the limitation of production and delivery
• agreement on the allocation of markets
• RPM
• Refusal to submit

The objectives of the law are trying, through the instrumentality of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which was approved by the Central Government with effect from 14 October, 2003.

Any arrangement of the combination of commercial enterprise, under the law. A combination includes the acquisition of shares, the acquisition of control by the company to another and merger between companies or between companies. Further any combination in excess of the limits set out in the Act in relation to the assets or turnover, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the relevant market in India, can be examined by the Commission. A company proposes to establish a connection, may, at its discretion, notify the Commission in the form of the disclosure of information about the proposed combination within 7 days of such proposal. If the Commission considers that a combination is likely to cause or has caused negative effects on competition, it shall issue a notice to the parties to show why the investigation in relation to the combination should not be implemented. On receipt of the response, if the Commission is of the opinion that prima facie, the combination has, or have significant adverse effects on competition, he may direct the publication of details inviting objections from the public and hear them, whenever appropriate. It can be any person who might be affected by the combination, the file its objections. The Commission may also ask whether the disclosure in the statement is correct, and combination, which would affect the competition. The Commission may also pass orders in the case of combinations, the following effects

• You approve the combination, if no significant adverse effect on competition is found
• It is however the combination of a significant negative impact on competition
• May change to the appropriate parties

The Commission has the limits for such combinations. In the case of the combination of the limits are --

For the purchase --
• combined assets of more than RS 1000 cr or turnover more than Rs 3000 CR (these limits are U.S. $ 500 million and 1500 million in the case of a company is outside India).
• The limits are more than RS 4000 and RS 12000 cr cr and U.S. $ 2 billion and 6 billions in case the acquirer is a group in India or outside India are.

For fusion / merger --
• Assets of the merged / unit more than RS 1000 cr or turnover more than Rs 3000 CR (these limits are U.S. $ 500 million and 1500 million in the case of a company is outside India).
• The limits are more than RS 4000 and RS 12000 cr cr and U.S. $ 2 billion and 6 billions in case merged / unit belongs to a group in India or outside India or

Implementation

Thus the Commission's investigation of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position?
• On its own, based on information and knowledge in its possession or
• Upon receipt of a complaint or
• On receipt of a referral

Appeal
• Any person, consumer or professional association may be a complaint against anti-competitive agreements and abuse of a dominant position. Here is a person with an individual, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), Society, Association of Persons (AOP), Body of Individuals (BOI), corporation, statutory authority, artificial legal person, local authorities and the body outside of India. A consumer is a person who buys for personal use or for other purposes.

• The Central Government or the Government of a State or an authority under an Act, a notice for a request.
• The Commission may on its own investigation on the basis of information or knowledge in their possession
• On their own, or the receipt of the complaint / reference, if the Commission believes that there is a prima facie case, it is directly to the Director-General, appointed under the Act to refer the matter to investigate and report his findings
• After receiving the report of the Director-General, the Commission shall decide on the matter after hearing the parties and give orders as fit.
• During the investigation, the Commission can grant interim relief restraining a party from continuing with anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position
• After the investigation, the Commission may have a delinquent companies to quit and not play into anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position
• the award of compensation
• To change agreement
• to recommend to the Central Govt. for the Department of the company in the event that it appears in the dominant position.
• The parties in person or by agent or by a lawyer or a practicing Company Secretary / Chartered Accountant / Cost and Works Accountant.
• The Commission may also pass orders in cases of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position.
• In the course of a proceeding before a statutory authority, a notice for the opinion, if one of the parties is a problem that the decision of the Authority, which is contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act.

Penalties

• The Commission may impose a penalty of not more than 10% of turnover on the company and in the case of the cartel - 3-times the amount of the profits from the cartel, or 10% of the turnover of all companies, whichever is greater

The law has so far only partially operational and the Competition Commission of India was not yet fully operational. The actual impact of the Act will require that its substantive provisions. Sections 3 a.m. to 6 p.m., will enter into force. However, the law still some spaces manifests. An examination of the powers of the CCI indicates that the Commission is fully equipped to make law and the whims of the market. However, while apparently enjoying, Carte Blanche, there seems to be some glaring omissions that violate the effectiveness of the provisions of the Competition Act should be remembered that the Commission initiate action on complaints of anticompetitive agreements abuse of dominant position, either suo moto or on the voluntary movement of a person who has an opinion of the Commission. Here are two aspects --- the absence of a binding rule compelling natural or legal persons, whether public or private, to the Commission and the logistical limitations of the Commission to be able to acquire knowledge of official misconduct because each in the economy.

If there is no built-in principle that the statutory authorities and individuals are obliged to approach the Commission to determine whether an anti-competitive agreement is in force, or whether it is an abuse of dominant position or whether a combination is harmful to the public interest, can we rely on the parties to the Commission on their own initiative? The central government has unbridled power in matters of policy and issues towards issues of politics, which are responsible for the Chamber of Commerce. The government also has the power to replace the Common Consular Instructions, against which the CCI can be a representation to the government. These provisions seriously at the independence and effectiveness of CCI. In fact heard by the Central Government in evolving to compete with the CCI should be made mandatory rather than discretionary, as provided in the Act. Moreover, the law is not the abuse of intellectual property rights, the monopoly rights for a limited time.

The Competition 2003