ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS AND

COMPETITION LAW WITH REFERNCE

TO THE PER-SE RULE
 Anti-competitive agreements
Any agreement in respect of production,
supply, distribution, storage, or control of
goods or provision of services, which causes or
is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect
on competition within India, is an anti
competitive agreement.
 Competition law usually places anti-
competitive agreements in two categories of
horizontal and vertical agreements. The
horizontal agreements are viewed more
seriously than vertical agreements.
The agreements referred in section 3(3) are
horizontal while those referred in section 3(4)
are vertical agreement.
 Cartelisation
There are three essential factors have been
identified to establish the existence of a cartel,
namely
Agreement by way of concerted action

suggesting conspiracy;
The fixing of prices

The intent to gain a monopoly or

restrict/eliminate competition.
 Cartel in UK
In the UK, anti-competitive Behaviour is
prohibited under Chapters I and II of the
Competition Act 1998 and may be prohibited
under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.
These laws prohibit anti-competitive
agreements between businesses and the abuse
of a dominant position by a business.
 Abuse of dominance
Section 4 (2) of the Act specifies the following practices by a dominant enterprise
or group of enterprises as abuses:
(i) directly or indirectly imposing unfair or discriminatory condition in purchase
or sale of goods or service;
(ii) directly or indirectly imposing unfair or discriminatory price in purchase or
sale (including predatory price) of goods or service;
(iii) limiting or restricting production of goods or provision of services or market;
(iv) limiting or restricting technical or scientific development relating to goods or
services to the prejudice of consumers;
(v) denying market access in any manner;
(vi) making conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by other par ties of
supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial
usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts;
(vii) using its dominant position in one relevant market to enter into, or protect,
other relevant market.
Competition act, 19, 2002
 Two rules per se and the rule of reason
have been helpful in ascertaining that whether
or not a particular agreement is anti-
competitive.
 Competition law and per se
rule
The principle of shall presume, used in section
3(3) has been explained by courts in India in
numerous cases such as in Sodhi Transport Co. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay.
In Sodhi Transport Co., the court observed that:
The words shall presume have been used in the
Indian judicial lore for over a century to convey
that they lay down a rebuttable presumption in
respect of matters with reference to which they are
usedand not lying down a rule of conclusive
proof.
 Conclusion
Competition law provides for the framework for
competitive activity.
It protects the process of competition and as such it
is of vital importance.
The process of competition is seen as being of value
and meriting protection.
The importance of competition in an increasingly
innovative and globalised economy is clear.
Vigorous competition between firms is the lifeblood
of strong and effective markets. Competition helps
consumers get a good deal.