1. KALPESHKUMAR L. GUPTA
LL.M., MBL (NLSIU), M.Phil. (Law)
Academic Associate – IIM Ahmedabad
7th Executive Development Programme - ICSI
November 8 , 2012

2. Outline of the presentation :-
1. Introduction
2. Some imp Definitions
3. Provision for CCI in
Competition Act, 2002
4. Recent Orders of CCI
5. Recent News
6. Video on CCI
7. Q & A
(C) K L GUPTA

3. (C) K L GUPTA

4. (C) K L GUPTA

5. (C) K L GUPTA

6. PART IV of Constitution of India
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
ARTICLE 38. State to secure a social order for the
promotion of welfare of the people.
(1)The State shall strive to promote the welfare of
the people by securing and protecting as effectively
as it may a social order in which justice, social,
economic and political, shall inform all the
institutions of the national life.
ARTICLE 39. Certain principles of policy to be
followed by the State.-
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards
securing-
(c) that the operation of the economic system does
not result in the concentration of wealth and means
of production to the common detriment;
(C) K L GUPTA

7. The Competition Architecture in India :-
1. MRTP Act. 1969 enacted on the recommendations
of the Monopolies Inquiry Committee (MIC). It found
that there is a high concentration of economic power
in over 85% of industries in India
2. The MRTP Act was amended twice in 1984 & in
1991.
3. In 1984 amendments brought unfair trade
practices in its ambit in order to protect consumer.
In 1991 anti competitive conduct covered.
4. The Finance Minister in his budget speech in 1999
announced of Raghavan Committee to propose a
modern competition law suitable to needs Indian
economy.
Cont…

8. Cont…
The Competition Architecture in India :-
5. In accordance with the recommendations of the
Raghavan Committee, the Competition Act, 2002 was
passed
6. Pursuant to the provisions of the Amendment in
2007, CCI was established on March 1, 2009 as an
autonomous independent body.
7. In 2009, the MRTP Act was repealed and the MRTP
Commission established under that act was abolished.
MRTP Commission’s pending cases were transferred to
CCI.
8. An appellate body called Competition Appellate
Tribunal was set up in May 2009 to hear the appeal and
dispose off the appeals against the decisions made by
the Commission.

9. MRTP ACT, 1969
For Prohibition of
Monopolistic,
Unfair &
Restrictive Trade
Practice
Liberalization – 1991
After this – difficulty arose to
administer present market
Competition Act, 2002 to meet the
requirement of the highly competitive market
1. Anti-Competitive Agreements
2. Abuse of Dominance
3. Combinations
4. Competition Advocacy
(C) K L GUPTA

10. An Act to provide, 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 interest of the consumer
and
-to ensure freedom of trade carried on
by other participants in markets
(C) K L GUPTA

11. (C) K L GUPTA

12. Cartel (Section 2(c))
Cartel includes an association
of producers, sellers,
distributors, traders or
service providers who, by
agreement amongst
themselves,
limit,
control or attempt to control
the production, distribution,
sale or price of, or, trade in
goods or provision of
services.
(C) K L GUPTA

13. Anti Competitive Agreement (Section 3) :-
No enterprise or association of enterprises or
person or association of persons shall enter into
any agreement in respect of 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.
(C) K L GUPTA

14. Abuse of Dominant Position (Section 4) :-
No enterprise or group shall abuse its dominant
position.
"dominant position" means a position of strength,
enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market,
in India, which enables it to—
(i) operate independently of competitive forces
prevailing in the relevant market; or
(ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the
relevant market in its favour.
(C) K L GUPTA

15. Predatory price (Explanation (b) in Section 4) :-
"predatory price" means the sale of goods or
provision of services, at a price which is below the
cost, as may be determined by regulations, of
production of the goods or provision of services,
with a view to reduce competition or eliminate the
competitors.
(C) K L GUPTA

16. Combination (Section 5) :-
The acquisition of one or more enterprises by one
or more persons or merger or amalgamation of
enterprises shall be a combination of such
enterprises and persons or enterprises, if—
Acquirer or Acquiree or Jointly have
either in India assets of >1000 Crore or
turn over >3000 Crore or
in India or Outside India, in aggregate, the
assets of >$500 Million, including at least
Rs. 500 crore in India or turn over >$1500
Million including at least Rs. 1500 Crore in
India or
Cont..
(C) K L GUPTA

17. Cont..
Combination (Section 5) :-
After acquisition, jointly have
either in India assets >4000 crore or turn
over >Rs. 12000 Crores or
In India or outside India, in aggregate the
assets >$2 Billion including at least Rs. 500
Crores in India or turnover >$6 Billion
including at least Rs. 1500 Crores in India
or
Cont..
(C) K L GUPTA

18. Combination (Section 5) :-
Any merger or amalgamation in which-
the enterprise remaining after merger or
the enterprise created as a result of the
amalgamation have
either in India, the assets of the value of
>Rs. 1000 Crores or turn over >3000 Crores or
in India or outside, In aggregate, the assets
of the value of >>$500 Million including at least
Rs. 500 Crores in India or turnover >$1500
including at least Rs. 1500 Crores in India
Cont..
(C) K L GUPTA

19. Combination (Section 5) :-
The value of assets shall be determined by taking
the book value of the assets as shown, in the
audited books of account of the enterprise, in the
financial year immediately preceding the financial
year in which the date of proposed merger falls…..
………as reduced by any depreciation, and the
value of assets shall include the brand value,
value of goodwill, or value of copyright, patent,
permitted use, registered trade mark, registered
user, geographical indication, design or layout,
etc.
(C) K L GUPTA

20. Regulation of Combinations (Section 6) :-
-No Person or enterprise shall enter into a
combination which causes or is likely to cause an
appreciable adverse effect on competition and
such a combination shall be void.
-Notice to the Commission within 30 days from
execution of agreement / approval of the proposal
relating to mergers or amalgamation by the Board
of Directors of the Co. concerned.
-No Combination shall come into effect until 210
days have passed from day on which notice has
been given to Commission.
Cont..
(C) K L GUPTA

21. Regulation of Combinations (Section 6) :-
-The provisions of this section shall not apply to
share subscription or financing facility or any
acquisition, by a public financial institution,
foreign institutional investor, bank or venture
capital fund, pursuant to any covenant of a loan
agreement or investment agreement.
-Above financial organizations shall within 7 days
from the days of the acquisition file in Form III
with the Commission the details of acquisition.
(C) K L GUPTA

22. Regulation on Combinations (Section 64) :-
-The CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction
of business relating to combinations) Regulations,
2011 (Notified on May 11, 2011)
-It has completed one year, during this period the
Commission received 61 notices out of which 56
notices have been cleared.
-These notices were cleared within the self-
imposed limit of 30 days.
(C) K L GUPTA

23. Notice for the proposed combination :-
-Form I with Fees of Rs. 10 lakhs (Schedule II)
-Where parties are engaged in production,
supply, distribution sale etc. of similar or
identical product with specified share market
then Form II with Fees of Rs. 40 lakhs
(Schedule II)
-In case of public financial institutions, FIIs,
bank or venture loan or any investment
agreement without fees in Form III
(C) K L GUPTA

24. Failure to file notice (Regulation 8):-
Where the parties to a combination fail to file
notice, then Commission upon its own knowledge
or information relating to such combination,
inquire into whether such a combination has
caused or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse
effect on competition within India and direct the
parties to the combination to file notice in Form II
within 30 days of the receipt of the notice.
(C) K L GUPTA

25. Obligation to file notice (Regulation 9):-
-In case of Acquisition, the Acquirer shall file the
notice.
-In case of merger parties to the combination
shall jointly file notice.
(C) K L GUPTA

26. (C) K L GUPTA

27. (C) K L GUPTA

28. (C) K L GUPTA

29. Establishment of Commission (Section 7) :-
-Head Office at New Delhi
-The Commission may establish at other places in India
Composition of Commission (Section 8) :-
-A Chairperson
-Not less than 2 and more than 6 other members appointed
by the Central Government.
-Chairperson & other members of the Commission shall be
whole-time members.
(C) K L GUPTA

30. Term of office of Chairperson & other Members
(Section 10)
-5 years (Till age of 65)
-They shall be eligible for re-appointment
Vacancy, Defect in appointment, etc not to
Invalidate proceedings of Commission (Section
15)
(C) K L GUPTA

31. Restriction on Employment of Chairperson & other
members (Section 12) :-
The Chairperson & other Members shall not for a
period of 2 years from the date on which they cease to
hold office any employment in, or connected with the
management or admin of any enterprise which has
been a party to a proceeding before the Competition.
However, the aforesaid restriction will not apply to
any employment under Central or State Government or
Local Authority or in any statutory authority.
(C) K L GUPTA

32. Appointment of Director General etc. (Section 16) :-
The Central Govt. may by notification, appoint a
Director-General for the purpose of assisting the
Commission in conducting inquiry into contravention
of any of the provisions of this Act
(C) K L GUPTA

33. Duties of Commission (Section 18) :-
Duty of the Commission is to….
-eliminate practices having adverse effect on
competition.
-promote and sustain competition
-protect the interest of consumers and
-ensure freedom of trade carries on by other
participants in markets in India
(C) K L GUPTA

34. Inquiry into certain agreements & dominant
position of enterprise (Section 19) :-
-Receipt of any information from any person,
consumer or their association or trade association or
-A reference made to it by the Central Government or
a State Government or a Statutory Authority.
-Suo moto
(C) K L GUPTA

35. Determinants – whether an agreement has an
appreciable adverse effect on competition
(Section 19) :-
-Creation of barriers to new entrants in the market;
-Driving existing competitions out of the market;
-Foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the
market;
-Accrual of benefit to consumers;
-Improvement in production or distribution of goods
or provisions of services;
-Promotion of technical, scientific and economic
development by means of production or distribution of
goods or provision of services etc.
(C) K L GUPTA

36. Determinants – whether an enterprise enjoys a
dominant position or not (Section 19) :-
-Market share of the enterprise;
-Size and resources of the enterprise;
-Size and importance of the competitors;
-Economic power of the enterprise including
commercial advantages over competitors;
-Vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or
services or network of such enterprise;
-Dependence of consumers on the enterprise;
-Market structure and size of the market etc..
(C) K L GUPTA

37. Inquiry into combinations by Commission
(Section 20) :-
-The Commission may upon its own knowledge or
information relating to acquisition referred to in
Section 5, inquire into whether such a combinations
has caused or is likely to cause an appreciable
adverse effect on competition in India.
-Commission shall not initiate any inquiry after the
expiry of 1 year from the date on which such
combination has taken effect.
(C) K L GUPTA

38. Procedure for inquiry under Section 19
(Section 26) :-
-Under the Section 19, if the Commission is of the
opinion that there exits a prima facie case, it shall
direct the Director General to cause an investigation to
be made into the matter if not prima facie case, it shall
close the matter.
-DG shall submit report.
-Report will be sent to parties concerned/Central
Government/State Government as the case may be.
(C) K L GUPTA

39. Orders by Commission after inquiry into
agreements or abuse of dominant position
(Section 27) :-
-Direct any enterprise, person etc. to discontinue and
not to re-enter such agreement or discontinue such
abuse of dominant position.
-Impose such penalty, as it may deem fit which shall
be not more than 10% of the average of the turnover
for the last three proceedings financial years.
-Direct to modify agreements.
(C) K L GUPTA

40. Procedure for investigation of combinations
(Section 29) :-
-Commission is of the prima facie opinion that a
combinations is likely to cause or has causes an
appreciable adverse effect on competition, it will issue
notice to the parties to combination calling upon them
to respond within 30 days of the receipt of the notice
as why investigation in respect of such combination
should not be conducted.
-After receiving reply Commission may call for report
from DG.
-Commission will ask for publication of agreement if
there is prima facie case of appreciable adverse effect
(C) K L GUPTA

41. Orders of Commission on certain combinations
(Section 31) :-
-Where Commission is of the opinion that any
combination does not or is not likely to have an
appreciable adverse effect on competition it shall by
order approve the combination.
-If yes then it shall direct that combination shall not
take effect.
-Commission may propose to modify combination
make it lawful.
-If parties accept modification then it will be
approved.
-If parties do not accept modification, such
combination shall be deemed to have an appreciable
adverse effect on competition.
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont.

42. Cont.
Orders of Commission on certain
combinations (Section 31) :-
If the Commission does not on the expiry of a
period of 210 days from the date of notice given
to the Commission under sub-section (2) of
section 6, pass an order or issue direction in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1)
or sub-section (7), the combination shall be
deemed to have been approved by the
Commission.
(C) K L GUPTA

43. Acts taking place outside India but having an
effect on competition in India (Section 32) :-
The Commission shall, notwithstanding that, an
agreement referred to in Section 3 has been entered
into outside India;
a.Any party to such agreement is outside India; or
b.Any enterprise abusing the dominant position is
outside India or
c.A combination has taken place outside India or
d.Any other mater matter or practice or action arising
out of such agreement or dominant position or
combination is outside India,
Have power to inquire into such agreement or abuse of
dominant position or combination if such agreement or
dominant position or combination has or is likely to
have an appreciable adverse effect on competition,
pass such orders as it may deem fit.
(C) K L GUPTA

44. Power to issue interim orders (Section 33) :-
The Commission may by order, temporarily restrain
any party from carrying on such act until the
conclusion of any such inquiry or until further orders,
without giving notice to such party where it deems
necessary.
(C) K L GUPTA

45. Contravention of orders of Commission
(Section 42) :-
-If any person, without reasonable cause, fails to
comply with orders or directions of the Commission
issued under Sections 27,28,31,32,33,42A and 43A of
the Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may
extend to Rs. 1 lakh for each day during which such
non-compliance occurs, subject to a max of Rs. 10
Crore.
-If any person does not comply with the above, he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 3 years or with fine which may
extend to Rs. 25 crore or with both as the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi may deem fit.
(C) K L GUPTA

46. Compensation in case of contravention of orders of
Commission (Section 42A):-
Application can be made To Appellate Tribunal for
violating directions issued by Commission
(C) K L GUPTA

47. Penalty for failure to comply with directions of
Commission & Director General (Section 43) :-
If any person fails to comply, without reasonable
cause with a direction given……
……….punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 1
lakh for each day during which such failure continues
subject to a maximum of Rs. 1 Crore.
(C) K L GUPTA

48. Power to impose penalty for no-furnishing of
information on combinations (Section 43A)
Commission shall impose on such person or enterprise
a penalty which may extend to 1% of the total
turnover or the assets whichever is higher of such
combination.
(C) K L GUPTA

49. Establishment of Appellate Tribunal (Section 53A) :-
The Central Govt. shall by notification establish an
Appellate Tribunal to be know as Competition
Appellate Tribunal,
- to hear and dispose of appeals against orders,
directions passed by the Commission;
- to adjudicate on claim for compensation that
may arise from the findings of the Commission.
(C) K L GUPTA

50. Composition of Appellate Tribunal (Section 53B) :-
- A Chairperson &
- not more than 2 members
Term of Office (Section 53F) :-
-5 years, eligible for re-appointment
-Chairperson (68 years), Members (65 years)
(C) K L GUPTA

51. Awarding compensation (Section 53N) :-
-The Central Govt. or a State Govt. or a local authority
or any enterprise or any person may make an
application to the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate on
claim for compensation that may arise from the
findings of the commission.
-Every application made under shall be accompanied
by the findings of the Commission.
-The Appellate Tribunal may, after an inquiry into the
allegations mentioned above pass an order directing
the enterprise to make payment to the applicant.
Power of Competition Commission of India to award
compensation under Section 34 repealed by the
Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007
(C) K L GUPTA

52. Contravention of orders of Appellate Tribunal
(Section 53Q) :-
If any person contravenes, without any reasonable
ground any order of the Appellate Tribunal, he shall
be liable for a penalty of not exceeding Rs. 1 Crore
or imprisonment for a term upto 3 years or with
both as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi
may deem fit.
(C) K L GUPTA

53. Competition Advocacy
(Section 49) :-
The Commission shall make
suitable measures for the
promotion of competition
advocacy, creating awareness
and imparting training about
competition issues.
(C) K L GUPTA

54. 60 days
Competition
Appellate Tribunal
(Section 53A)
60 days
Competition of
Commission of
India (Section 7)
Appeal Flow

55. Organizational
Strcuture of CCI
(C) K L GUPTA

56. (C) K L GUPTA

57. (C) K L GUPTA

58. CCI is now member of International Competition
Network, USA :-
-On October 25, 2001, top anti trust official from 14
countries including UK, USA, Australia, Germany,
Japan, Korea etc. launched ICN
-The ICN is an informal network of established and
newer agencies, competition agencies with the
common aim of addressing practical antitrust
enforcement and policy issues.
-The ICN has grown to 117. (As on May 2011)
(C) K L GUPTA

59. (C) K L GUPTA

60. (C) K L GUPTA

61. (C) K L GUPTA

62. (C) K L GUPTA

63. (C) K L GUPTA

64. (C) K L GUPTA

65. (C) K L GUPTA

66. DLF fined for abuse of
dominance :-
DLF apartment owners associations
such as the Belaire and the Park
Place Owners Associations, Gurgaon
filed information with the
Commission against DLF Ltd. in the
year 2010.
It was alleged that by imposing
arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable
conditions on the apartment
allottees in the Belaire and Park
Place situated in DLF city, Phase - V
Gurgaon, DLF had abused its
dominant position.
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

67. Cont…
DLF fined for abuse of dominance :-
-CCI directed DLF to cease & desist from
formulating & imposing unfair conditions in its
agreements with buyers & modify unfair
conditions imposed on the buyers.
-The CCI also imposed penalty @7% of the
average turnover for the 3 preceding financial
years aggregating to Rs. 630 Crores on DLF.
-DLF appealed in COMPAT. It also got stay on
order of CCI
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

68. Cement companies
penalized for
Cartelization :-
-CCI found Cement Mfgs in
violation of the provisions of
the Competition Act, 2002
which deals with
anticompetitive agreements
including Cartels.
-The order was passed
pursuant to investigation
carried out by the DG upon
information filed by the
Builder Association of India.
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

69. Cont…
-On July 30, disposing of 6-year-old investigation,
initiated by its predecessor trade regulator body
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
in 2006, the CCI had found the cement makers guilty.
-MRTPC had initiated the enquiry in 2006 suo moto
based on a media report on the rise of cement prices. It
was also later supplemented with a complaint filed by
the Builders Association of India.
-Cement companies move tribunal against CCI order.
Next hearing is on November 22, 2012.*
*Source :- http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-11-
01/news/34857835_1_century-cements-grasim-cements-cci-order Dt. November 1, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

70. Rs.
6500
Crores
(C) K L GUPTA

71. Commission takes suo-moto cognizance of
bid-rigging by manufactures of LPG
cylinders :-
-In 2011, the Commission took suo moto
cognizance of the reported manipulation of the
bids by manufacturers of LPG cylinders for
supplying 105 lakh to IOCL during 2011-2012
-DG found identical price in bidding which deprived
the IOCL from getting competitive price.
-Matter is pending before the Competition
Appellate Tribunal
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

72. Commission imposed fine of Rs. 165.59 Crores and
it further directed all the contravening parties to
cease and desist from indulging in anti-competitive
conduct which resulted in bid rigging.
(C) K L GUPTA

73. CCI fines 10 explosives manufacturers on
a complaint filed by Coal India;
Amarchand represents Coal India :-
The penalty has been imposed for violations of
Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act).
The complaint was filed by Coal India Limited
(CIL) under Section 3 and 4 of the Act alleging
that various explosives manufacturers were
engaging in anti-competitive conduct by
collectively determining prices, threatening to
stop supplies and boycotting the reverse auctions
organized by CIL in 2010 to finalize its suppliers
for explosives.
Source :- http://barandbench.com/brief/8/2290/cci-fines-10-explosives-manufacturers-
on-a-complaint-filed-by-coal-india-amarchand-represents-coal-india- accessed on
November 1, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

74. Competition Commission of India
imposes fine on film chamber
(The Hindu, April 20, 2012):-
Competition Commission of India imposing a fine
of Rs. 16.82 lakh on the Karnataka Film Chamber
of Commerce (KFCC) for restricting the number of
prints of language films other than Kannada.
KFCC, which follows a set of norms, restricted the
number of prints of the Hritik Roshan-starrer
Kites and an Abhishek Bachchan film Raavan to
24 in the State in 2010. When the distributor did
not heed its ruling, KFCC issued a warning and
disrupted the screening of Kites.
Source :- http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/karnataka/article3332863.ece
accessed on November 1, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA
Cont…

75. Cont…
Besides the makers of Kites and Raavan,
producers of RaOne, My Name is Khan, Mousam
and a few others have knocked on the doors of
Competition Commission of India seeking justice.
Noting that the decision of the KFCC was anti-
competitive,
Competition Commission of India “found it
appropriate to impose penalty at the rate of 10%
of the average three years income of the KFCC”.
Source :- http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/karnataka/article3332863.ece
accessed on November 1, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA

76. (C) K L GUPTA

77. Competition Commission of India probes
auto companies’ ‘monopolistic’ practices
(Times of India, August 8 , 2012):-
The Competition Commission of India (CCI)
has launched investigations into the
current trend of automobile companies not
allowing their dealers to diversify with
other brands.
Source :- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Competition-
Commission-of-India-probes-auto-companies-monopolistic-
practices/articleshow/15398329.cms accessed on November 1, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA

78. Devgn vs Chopras: Ajay Devgn files
complaint against Yash Raj Films :-
Ajay filing a complaint with the Competition
Commission of India (CCI) alleging that the
makers of Jab Tak Hai Jaan have been blocking
the release of his film in certain theatres.
v/s
Source :- http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ajay-devgn-files-complaint-against-yash-raj-
films/1/227144.html accessed on November 1, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA

79. Ajay Devgn Complains
Against Yash Raj Films to
CCI :-
Competition Commission of India
(CCI) has received a complaint ADF
from actor-producer Ajay Devgn
against Yash Raj Films for alleged v/s
abuse of dominant position ahead
of the release of their films this
month.
"The complaint is being
considered. A decision on
whether to accept it or not is
likely to be taken in a week or
so," the official said.
Source :- http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=779766 accessed on November 2, 2012
(C) K L GUPTA

80. CCI rejects Ajay Devgn's plea against
Yash Raj Films (November 5, 2012) :-
Fair trade regulator CCI has rejected actor-
producer Ajay Devgn's complaint alleging
abuse of dominant position by Yash Raj Films,
saying that there are no violations of
competition norms in the case.
Ajay Devgn Films (ADF) said it has appealed
against the Competition Commission of India's
(CCI) ruling.
(C) K L GUPTA

81. For Market to be just……..
For Market to be just……..
……..Competition is must
……..Competition is must
(C) K L GUPTA

82. Kalpeshkumar L Gupta
Academic Associate
IIM Ahmedabad
klgupta@iimahd.ernet.in
advocatekgupta@gmail.com
(c) K L Gupta