The document discusses the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of India. It was enacted in 1969 to prevent concentration of economic power and control monopolies and unfair/restrictive trade practices. It was amended in 1991 to focus more on prohibiting unfair/restrictive practices rather than controlling company size. The act established the MRTP Commission to investigate complaints and issue orders but it had limited effectiveness due to resource constraints and lack of clear definitions. A new Competition Act was passed in 2002 to address the shortcomings of the MRTP Act.

1. Monopolistic and restrictive trade practice act
Presented To :-
Mr. Shah Mohammad Sir
Faculty of I.B.M.
C.S.J.M. University
Kanpur
Presented By :-
Jai Prakash
MBA 1st SEM.
Batch: (2015-17)

2. EXTANTCOMPETITIONLAWOF INDIA
• MONOPOLIES AND
RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
ACT,1969
• BROUGHT INTO FORCE IN 1970

3. INTRODUCTION
• THE MONOPOLISTIC AND RESTRICTIVE
TRADE PRACTICE ACT,1969, WAS ENACTED
TO ENSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF THE
ECONOMIC SYSTEM DOES NOT RESULT IN
THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC
POWER IN HANDS OF FEW.
• THE ACT CAME INTO FORCE FROM 1ST JUNE,
1970, AND HAS BEEN AMENDED IN 1991

4. HISTORY OF MRTP
• Constitution of India, Art. 39 (c) – “the
operation of the economic system does
not result in the concentration of wealth
and means of production to the common
detriment”
• 1947- 1969: Regimented and strict
system of government controls
• 1969: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act (MRTP Act) legislated

5. EVOLUTION
• 1999: Expert Group on interaction between
Trade and Competition Policy recommended
new competition law to “promote fair
competition and control (eliminate) anti-
competitive practices” in the market
• 2000: GOI High Level Committee on
Competition Law and Policy provided a
draft Competition law.
• 2002:The Competition Act legislated

6. EVOLUTION
• 2004: UPA government elected despite “India
Shining” belief
• NCMP commits to greater effort towards increasing
competition and a competitive environment – broad
basing development
• 2005: GOI asks CCI to develop consultation paper
on National Competition Policy
• 2005: CCI establishes Advisory Committee to
develop draft National Competition Policy
• 2006: Planning Commission establishes Working
Group on Competition Policy (for 11th Plan – 2007-

7. OBJECTIVES:
• Prevention of concentration of
economic power in a few hands
• Control and regulation of
monopolies in certain sectors
• Prevention of unfair trade
practices
• Prevention of restrictive trade
practices

8. APPLIABILITY
• The MRTP Act extends to the whole of India except
Jammu and Kashmir.
Unless the Central Government otherwise directs, this
act SHALL NOT apply to:
• Any undertaking owned or controlled by a
Government company
• Any undertaking owned or controlled by the
Government
• Any undertaking owned or controlled by a corporation
(not being a company established by or under any
Central, Provincial or State Act)

9. 1991 AMENDMENTS TO MRTP ACT
1. SIZE CONCEPT GIVEN UP
2. CURBS ON GROWTH OF MONOPOLY
COMPANIES DELETED
3. MERGER CONTROL REMOVED
4. MORE EMPHASIS ON PROHIBITION
OF RTPs, UTPs AND MTPs
IN SUM, BIG BECOMING BIGGER IS NO
MORE UGLY

10. REGULATIONOF MTPs
• Regulation of production and
fixing the term of sale.
• Prohibiting any action that
restricts competition.
• Fixing standards for goods
produced.

11. RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
 A trade practice which restricts or
reduces competition may be termed as
Restrictive Trade Practices and it
harm the consumer interest.
Because of their adverse effect on the
consumer and public interest, they are
sought to be regulated in almost every
country of the world.

12. REGULATIONOF RTPs
• The practice shall not be repeated.
• The agreement shall be void and shall
stand modified in such a manner as may
be specified in the order.

13. UNFAIRTRADE PRACTICE
A trade practice which, for the purpose of
promoting any sale, use or supply of any
goods or services, adopts unfair method.
These are categorized as:
 False Representation
 False Price or Bargain Price
 Free gifts offer and Prize Schemes
 Non-compliance of Prescribed Standards
 Hoarding, Destruction etc.

14. FALSE REPRESENTATION
• Falsely suggests that the goods are of particular
standard quality, grade and composition
• Falsely suggest any re-built good as new one
• Makes a misleading representation concerning for
the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or
services
• Gives any warrantee or guarantee to the
performance and efficacy of the goods that is not
based on proper tests
• A promise to replace until it has achieved a
specified result

15. FALSE OFFER OR BARGAIN PRICE
When an advertisement is published in
newspaper, offering goods at a bargain
price when in fact there is no such
intention that the same may be offered
at the same price for reasonable period

16. FREE GIFTS OFFER AND PRIZE SCHEMES
 Offering any gifts along with some other
goods when the intention is different
Creating an impression that something
is offered free when in fact the price is
included in the price of article sold
Offering some prizes to the buyers by
the conduct of any contest with real
intention to promise sales

17. NON-COMPLIANCE OF
PRESCRIBED STANDARDS
Any sale or supply of goods, knowing or
having reason to believe that the goods do not
comply with the standards prescribed by some
competent authority

18. HOARDING,DESTRUCTION ETC.
Any practice of that permits the
hoarding or destruction of goods with an
intention to raise the cost of those or
other similar goods

19. DRAWBACKS OF MRTP ACT
• Poorly resourced commission.
• Inadequacy in dealing effectively with anti-
competitive practices, due to lack of
definitions, cumbersome procedures and
scarce resources.
• Absence of specification of identifiable anti-
competition practices.
• Anti-competition practices like cartels,
predatory pricing, rigging etc. are not

20. Procedure of action on complaint:
• Inquiry may be initiated through a complaint
by an individual or registered consumer
organisation.
• Fact finding investigation is carried on by the
Director General.
• If no prima facie case is made, the complaint
is dismissed, else an order is passed to that
effect.
• The commission may restrain the party
concerned from carrying on the trade
practices by granting temporary injunction.
• Final order is passed. Compensation may be
granted to the complaint.

21. Address-
• Complaints regarding monopolistic trade practice,
unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice can
be made to the MRTP commission at the following
address:
Director General (Investigation & Registration)
MRTPC
Bikaner House Baracks
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110011

22. RELIEF AVAILABLE
• The practice shall be
discontinued or shall not be
repeated
• The agreement relating thereto,
shall be void
• Any information relating to such
unfair trade practice shall be
disclosed

23. REMEDIES UNDER THE ACT
 Temporary Injunction
 Compensation

24. CONCLUSION
• The MRTP Act, besides adversely
affecting economic growth, blunted
Indian companies’ ability to grow,
consolidate and improve
competitiveness. This has had a very
dampening effect on their global
competitiveness.

25. Conclusion
• It can be said that the MRTP Act was
successful to an extent.
• However, due to scarcity of resources, lack
of clearly defined procedures and
cumbersome rules and regulations, the Act
wasn’t as effective as it was supposed to be.
• Also, the changing economic and trade
environment (brought by the New Economic
Policy, 1991) made it necessary for a change
in the MRTP Act.