FROM MRTP TO COMPETITION ACT: AN EVOLUTION OF

COMPETITION LAWS IN INDIA

Competition is defined as “a situation in a market in which firms or sellers

independently strive for the buyers’ patronage in order to achieve a particular
business objective, for example, profits, sales or market share” , .

Competition law plays a crucial role in promoting fair competition and

protecting consumers in the marketplace. In India, the evolution of competition
law has been a long and complex journey, characterized by several legislative
and policy changes. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP)
Act, 1969 was the first competition law enacted in India, which focused on
controlling monopolies and restricting trade practices that were deemed harmful
to competition. Under the MRTP Act, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Commission (MRTPC) was established to oversee the implementation
and enforcement of the Act. The MRTPC was empowered to investigate and
penalize any entity found to be engaging in monopolistic or restrictive trade
practices. However, the MRTP Act was criticized for being inadequate in
addressing contemporary competition issues, and a new competition law was
needed. Following the economic reforms of 1991, globalization had a
significant impact on India. As a result, there was a requirement to revise the
existing Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act to keep up
with the swiftly evolving economic landscape. In response to this need, the
Competition Act, 2002 was enacted, which replaced the MRTP Act and
established the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as the key regulator for
enforcing competition law in India.

The evolution of competition law in India is a complex and dynamic process

that has undergone significant changes in the past few decades. It has been
influenced by several landmark court cases, which have shaped the
interpretation and enforcement of competition law in India. The modern
competition law framework in India is based on the Competition Act of 2002.
The Competition Act is enforced by the Competition Commission of India
(CCI), which is a statutory body established in 2003. The Competition
Commission of India (CCI) is a quasi-judicial entity that serves as a regulatory
agency to prevent and regulate anticompetitive business practices in India.3The
CCI is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Act and promoting
competition in the Indian market.
 Since its enactment, the Competition Act has undergone several amendments to
address emerging challenges and align with global best practices. In 2007, the
Act was amended to allow for the regulation of mergers and acquisitions that
may have an adverse effect on competition. In 2009, the Act was amended to
include provisions related to anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance,
and competition advocacy.

One of the key highlights of the evolution of competition law in India has been
the increasing focus on promoting competition and addressing anti-competitive
practices in the digital economy. In 2019, the CCI released a report on e-
commerce in India, which highlighted the need for a level playing field in the
online marketplace and the importance of competition regulation in the digital
economy. The evolution of competition law in India is ongoing, and there are
ongoing debates on the effectiveness of competition law in promoting
competition and protecting consumers in the Indian marketplace.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITION ACT AND THE

MRTP ACT:

The Competition Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
(MRTP) Act are two significant pieces of legislation governing competition law
in India. A comparative analysis of these acts reveals notable differences and
advancements in the Competition Act, addressing the limitations of the MRTP
Act.

Scope and Coverage: The MRTP Act primarily focused on addressing

monopolies and regulating restrictive trade practices whereas the Competition
Act has a broader scope, covering anti-competitive agreements, abuse of
dominance, and mergers. It recognizes the significance of competition as a
driver of economic growth and consumer welfare.

Emphasis on Competition: The MRTP Act had a limited emphasis on

competition and instead emphasized preventing monopolies and restrictive trade
practices through government control. The Competition Act shifts the focus
towards promoting fair competition, recognizing it as a means to enhance
efficiency, innovation, and consumer benefits. It aims to create a level playing
fied.

Merger Control: The MRTP Act lacked an effective merger control

mechanism, resulting in limited scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions. In
comparison, the Competition Act introduced a robust merger control regime. It
mandates the notification and review of mergers and acquisitions that meet
certain thresholds, enabling the prevention of anti-competitive consolidations
and ensuring a competitive market structure.

Enforcement Mechanisms: The MRTP Act lacked a specialized competition

authority and relied on the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Commission (MRTPC) for enforcement. The Competition Act established the
Competition Commission of India (CCI) as a specialized authority for enforcing
competition law. The CCI possesses enhanced investigative powers, including
the ability to inquire into anti-competitive practices and impose penalties.

Approach to Regulation: The MRTP Act had a more regulatory approach,

involving prior approval and government control over various business
activities whereas, the Competition Act adopts a more market-oriented
approach, focusing on enforcement and the promotion of competition. It
encourages self-regulation, competition advocacy, and voluntary compliance by
businesses.

Consumer Welfare: The MRTP Act did not explicitly prioritize consumer
welfare, focusing more on market structure and the prevention of monopolies.
The Competition Act explicitly recognizes the importance of consumer welfare
and aims to protect consumer interests by promoting competition, preventing
anti-competitive behaviour, and ensuring fair and affordable prices.

International Alignment: The MRTP Act had limited alignment with

international competition law principles and practices. The Competition Act
aligns with international best practices, reflecting the influence of global
competition law frameworks and harmonization efforts.

The Competition Act represents a significant improvement over the MRTP Act
by addressing its limitations. The Competition Act's broader scope, emphasis on
competition, the introduction of merger control provisions, specialized
enforcement authority, and focus on consumer welfare contribute to a more
effective and modern competition law regime in India for businesses.

ANTI –COMPETITIVE AGREEMENT

INTRODUCTION
The present antitrust/competition law, the Competition Act, 2002, inter alia,
deals with one of the substantive laws relating to prohibition of anti-competitive
agreements (under Section 3) which was enforced w.e.f. 20th May, 2009.

An anti-competitive agreement is an agreement entered into by and between

enterprises or persons, association of enterprises, in respect of production,
supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of
service which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on
competition within India (“AAEC”) (Section 3(1))

. Such agreements are treated in contravention of the Act and are void (Section
3(2)).

These agreements are either horizontal (Section 3(3)) or vertical (Section 3(4))
in nature. Section 3(5) deals with the exemptions relating to intellectual
property rights (“IPR”

Before we may discuss Anti-competitive agreements, as above, it is beneficial

to understand the concept of “agreements”

AGREEMENTS;

Section 2(e) of Indian contract act ,define security as “ Every promise and
every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an
agreement” and section 2(b) of the competition act define agreement as,
agreement” includes any arrangement or understanding or action in concert,—
(i) whether or not, such arrangement, understanding or action is formal or in
writing; or

(ii) whether or not such arrangement, understanding or action is intended to be

enforceable by legal proceedings;

In Competition Commission of India v. Coordination Committee of Artists

and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television and Ors.,4 the
Supreme Court observed that the term “agreement” must correspond to an
economic activity which is central to the concept of competition law and must
not relate solely to a social activity. It was held that “economic activity, as is
generally understood, refers to any activity consisting of offering products in a
market regardless of whether the activities are intended to earn a profit”. Thus,
the agreement can be oral and need not always be formal or written, but it must
be corresponding to an economic activity and must not relate solely to a social
activity.

DEFINITION OF ANTI COMPETITIVE AGREEMENT

In simple words, Anti-Competitive agreements are agreements that are made by

two or more companies competing in the same market to fix prices or reduce
stocks etc, so as to manipulate the market favourably for them. This has the
effect of the companies reducing the competition in the market which adversely
affects the end consumer.

The Competition Act, 2002 defines anti-competitive agreements as such in

section 3(1) where it states, “No enterprise or association of enterprises or
individuals or association of individuals may enter into an agreement regarding
production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or
provision of services which may adversely affect the competition in the Indian
market”.

Such agreements are termed as AAEC agreement, which means

the Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition agreements. The Act
expressly states that such an agreement shall be void. An AAEC agreement is
classified as any agreements that result in:

 Directly affects purchase or sale prices.

 Indirectly affects purchase or sale prices.

 Limits production.

 Limits supply.

 Limits technical development.

 Limits service provision in the market.

 Leads to the rigging of bids.

 Leads to collusive bidding.

Section 3(1) applies to all agreements which have an AAEC, actual or probable,
in India. Thus, it refers, in a general way, to all agreements and does not lay
down the distinction between horizontal agreements (Section 3(3)) and vertical
agreements (Section 3(4)

Before coming to the definitions of horizontal and vertical agreement we have

to understand the production chain ;

 Supplier
 Manufacturer
 Wholesaler
 Distributor
 Retailer

HORIZONTAL AGREEMENTS

Horizontal agreements defined under Section 3 (3) are basically between or

decision taken by any person or association of persons or association of
enterprise engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or services. In other
words, it is like cartels or concerted actions in nature, which envisages the
uniformity or harmonization of the market behaviour of a group of competing
producers or suppliers. The common forms are price-fixing, limiting production
and supply, allocating share or sales quota, engage in an appreciable adverse
effect on competition. These agreements are per se anti-competitive. These
agreements are always subjected to the ‘Rule of reason1 ’

As per the above definition, horizontal agreement covers any agreement entered
into between 6 categories viz;

(i) enterprises or
(ii) associations of enterprises or
(iii) persons or
(iv) associations of persons or
(v) any person and enterprise or
(vi) practice carried on, or decision taken by, (a) any association of
enterprises or (b) association of persons, including (c) cartels, the said
above categories must be engaged in (i) identical or (ii) similar trade of
goods

Horizontal agreements are of the following types:

  Agreements regarding prices- this would include all agreements that
directly or indirectly fix the purchase or sale price.s.(3)(3)(a)

.  Agreement regarding quantities- this includes agreements aimed at

limiting or controlling production and investment.(3)(3)(b)

 Agreement regarding bids- this includes tenders submitted as a result of any

joint activity or agreement. (3)(3)(d)

 Agreement regarding market sharing- it includes agreements for sharing of

markets by territory, type or size or customer, or in any other way .(3)(3)(c)

VERTICAL AGREEMENTS

Vertical agreements are defined under Section 3 (4) of the Act, which says
that if an agreement is entered between different levels or different stages of the
chain of the products from different markets, in respect of production, supply,
distribution, storage, sale or price of or trade-in provision of services called
vertical agreements. The common forms of such agreements are:

 Tie-in arrangements,

 Exclusive supply,

 Exclusive distribution,

 Refusal to deal, and

 Resale price maintenance

If such an agreement causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect

on the competition in India, it shall be void. Under the ‘rule of reason’, vertical
agreements are treated more leniently than horizontal agreements. This is
because vertical agreements can perform pro competitive functions. For
example, if Make My Trip leading online travel company, and Oyo online hotel
booking entered into an agreement that is working at different stages and in
different markets. The confidential agreements said that, Make My Trip will not
be listing the Treebo and Fab hotels who are competitors to the Oyo in the
Make My Trip list. The Competition Commission of India in Rubtub
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. And MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. (MMT) held that this
vertical agreement violates Section 3 (4) (d) which says that refusal to deal

Appreciable adverse effects on the competition

The important essential aspect to call the agreement the anti-competitive

agreement, it must cause an appreciable adverse effect on the competition. Then
what is the meaning of AAEC? The questions if facts have to be decided;

 Whether there is competition

 Whether there is any adverse effect on competition and

 That adverse effect is ‘appreciable’ .

The elements that go necessary into deciding whether or not there is an

appreciable adverse effect on competition.

Anti-competitive agreements:

 Creation of barriers to new entrants in the market

 Driving existing competitors out of the market

 Foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market

EXEMPTIONS FROM ANT-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS [Section

3(5)]

• According to Section 3(5)(i). a person exercising his right to prevent

infringement or imposing reasonable conditions to protect his Intellectual
Property Rights (hereinafter referred to as "IPRS"). that is, Copyright, Patent,
Trademark, Geographical Indications and Designs shall exempted from forming
anti-competitive agreement under Section 3.

In Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. [7] CCI rejected the
exemption claimed under Section 3(5)(i) of the Act and held that
though registration of an IPR is necessary, the same does not automatically
entitle a company to seek exemption under section 3(5)(i) of the Act. The
important criteria for determining whether the exemption under section 3(5)(i)
is available or not is to assess whether the condition imposed by the IPR holder
can be termed as "imposition of a reasonable conditions, as may be necessary
for the protection of any of his rights." [Para 9.1.13]

• As per Section 3(5)(ii) anti-competitive agreement under section 3 shall not

restrict the right of any person to export goods from India to the extent to which
the agreement relates exclusively to the production ,supply distribution or
control or provision of service for such export.

INQUIRY OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENT

Who may ask for inquiry?

Section 19(1) of the Competition Act provides that the CCI may inquire into
anti-competitive agreements:

On its own or;

• On receipt of any information from any person or consumer or their

association or trade association or

• On a reference by the government.

• Factors Determining Appreciable Adverse Effect On Competition

While determining whether an agreement is anti-competitive and has AAEC

under Section 3, the CCI takes into account the following factors as provided
under Section 19(3):

• Creation of barriers to new entrants in the market;

• Driving existing competitors out of the market;

• Foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market;

• Accrual of benefits to consumers;

DETAILED INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 26

Section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002 allows the Competition Commission

of India (CCI) to ask for the Director General’s investigation in case of “prima
facie” violations of the Act. Pertinently, the result of such an investigation under
no circumstance is bound to influence the final decision given by the CCI. DG’s
investigation is imperative to analyze and understand the facts and issues of the
matter.

Although, such an investigation looks procedural in nature but it bears

importance to understand what standard of proof qualifies to be the ‘prima-
facie’ violation for the CCI for catena of reasons:

 Firstly, while carrying out such an investigation, the CCI has to carry out
a cost-benefit analysis since the CCI has limited finances and operates
within limited resources.

 Secondly, such an investigation carried out by CCI plays a direct role in

order to determine the business practices adopted by the parties, so that
they follow this set-pattern to avoid judicial scrutiny.

 Lastly, the scheme of the Competition Act, 2002 does not allow the CCI
to find an ultimate contravention until and unless the Director General’s
investigation is ordered. The aforesaid scheme of the Act allows the
opposite parties involved in the matter to defend themselves at two stages
i.e. the investigation stage and after the submission of report to the
Director General.

ORDER IN CASE OF ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENT(SECTION

27)

f after inquiry CC finds that the agreement is anti-competitive and has AAEC, it
may pass all or any of the following orders:

• Direct the parties to discontinue and not to re-enter such anti-competitive

agreement [Section 27(a)]
• Impose penalty (not to be more than 10% of the average of the turnover for the
last three preceding financial years) upon each party involved in such agreement
[Section 27(b)].

• In case of a cartel, impose a penalty up to three times of its profit for each year
of the continuance of such agreement or 10% of its turnover for each such year,
whichever is higher [Section 27(b)]

• Modify the agreement [Section 27(d)]

• Direct the enterprise to comply with the orders, directions and make payment
of cost as directed by CCI [Section 27(e)]

• Pass any other order or direction as it may deem fit [Section 27(g)]

• Issue interim orders [Section 33)

CONCLUSION;

From the date of enforcement of the Competition Act, 2002 there are about 750
cases registered before the commission with respect to the anti-competitive
agreements (Section 3) and abuse of dominant position (Section 4). Therefore,
because of such overwhelming numbers it becomes imperative to allocate
resources to achieve the aim and objectives of the Act.

Furthermore, the CCI General Regulations, 2009 suggests that the investigation
must be completed within the 60 days, but a research conducted at Centre for
Competition Law and Economics states that the median time taken to
investigate the matters was 240 days. In the light of such findings it can be
stated that any prima facie violation of the Act found by the CCI results in
considerable expenditure through the Director General’s Office.

AUTHOR OPINION

The performance of the CCI could be improved in a number of areas, most

notably in the area of decision-making clarity and the justifications for rejecting
opposing views, as is to be expected in the early stages of any body of law. This
is significant not only for the pertinent issue at hand but also to improve public
knowledge of the legal system given the early stages of development of
competition law in India.
RULE OF REASON:

Under the Rule of Reason, the impact of competition is determined by the

details of the case, the marketplace, as well as the prevailing competition, as
well as any current or potential limitation on competition. Tata Engineering and
Locomotive Co. Ltd v. Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreement was the case
where the Supreme Court of India interpreted the rule of reason. It was decided
that “three factors should be considered to answer the question:

(a) What facts are unique to the business for which the restriction is imposed.
(b) What was the situation before and after the restraint was imposed,

(c) What is the essence of the limitation and what is its real and likely effect.

In the case of the rule of reason test, the pro-competitive effects are balanced
with the anti-competitive effects, and after that, if the pernicious effect is
considered higher the activity is prevented by the competitive agency of the
respective jurisdiction.

COMBINATIONS AND REGULATIONS

Introduction:

In the wake of liberalisation and privatisation that was triggered in India in

early nineties, a realisation gathered momentum that the existing Monopolistic
and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, was not equipped adequately enough
to tackle the competition aspect of the Indian economy.

With starting of the globalisation process, Indian enterprises started facing the
heat of competition from domestic players as well as from global giants, which
called for level playing field and investor-friendly environment. Hence, need
arose with regard to competition laws to shift the focus from curbing
monopolies to encouraging companies to invest and grow, thereby promoting
competition while preventing any abuse of market power

In an open market economy, some enterprises may undermine the market by

resorting to anticompetitive practices for short-term gains. These practices can
completely nullify the benefits of competition. It is for this reason that, while
countries across the globe are increasingly embracing market economy, they are
also reinforcing their economies through the enactment of competition law and
setting up competition regulatory authority. In India, in line with the
international trend and, to cope up with the changing realities, the Competition
Act, 2002 was enacted, establishing the Competition Commission of India
(CCI) as the competition regulatory authority.

Combinations include mergers, amalgamations and acquisition of control,

shares, voting rights or assets

. Regulation of combinations is one aspect of the competition law in regards to

which the law in India is still growing and jurisprudential aspects as to the same
are being incorporated from the laws as so prevalent in the EU jurisdiction and
the U.S. jurisdiction. The term Combination, speaking in regards to the
Competition law as so prevalent in the Indian jurisdiction comprises of mergers,
amalgamations and acquisition of control, shares, voting rights and assets of one
company by another company or group. In line with the notified merger
thresholds, notified by way of Combination Regulations 2011, the CCI looks
into the aspect of effect to market competition efficacy and effectiveness of a
particular combination

Combinations, Regulation of Combinations & Merger Control Thresholds

Combinations:

Combinations mean mergers, amalgamations of companies or acquisition of

control, shares, voting rights or assets of one company by another company or
group. As such, combinations are usual business activities, which allow
companies to consolidate their position in markets.

A merger is a combination of two or more businesses into one business. Laws in

India use the term ‘amalgamation’ for merger. The Income Tax Act, 1961,
Section 2(1A) defines amalgamation as the merger of one or more
companies with another or merger of two or more companies to form a
new company, in such a way that all assets and liabilities of the
amalgamating companies become assets and liabilities of the amalgamated
company and shareholders not less than nine-tenth in value of shares in the
amalgamating company or companies become shareholders of the
amalgamated company

Mergers and Acquisitions

Merger and Acquisition is one of the growth strategies for a business

enterprise.
Two or companies merge or combine together: -

To improve the operational performance or

For expansion of business or

To create a dominant position in the market or

To reduce the number of competitors in the market.

But there is a distinction between merger and Acquisition, Merger is when

two or more individual businesses consolidate to form a new enterprise whereas
Acquisition is when one company take over the another.

Types of mergers

1. Horizontal Merger- In these types of mergers, the companies which are in

direct competition with each other on the basis of product lines and markets.

2. Vertical Merger- In a vertical merger, companies are at different levels in

supply chain.

3. Conglomerate Merger- In this type of merger there is a union of two

companies who are in different industries or different geographic areas

Merger in India may take place in either of the two forms:

1. Merger through absorption, absorption is a combination of two or more

companies into an ‘existing company’. All companies except one lose their
identity in such a merger.
2. Merger through consolidation , consolidation is a combination of two or
more companies into a ‘new company’. In this form of merger, all
companies are legally dissolved and a new entity is created

In India, Mergers were regulated by the Companies Act and also under Security
and Exchange Board of India Act for private individuals, but after the
enactment of Competition Act the players including the consumers came under
the ambit of Competition Act.

Acquisition

Section-2(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 states that acquisition means

acquiring or agreeing to acquire: -
• Shares, voting rights or assets of an enterprise; or

Control over the management;

• Control over the assets of an enterprise.

Acquiring of Control by a person over an Enterprise

The Act further covers any acquisition of ‘Control’ by a ‘Person’ over an

‘Enterprise’ where: -

Such person has direct or indirect control on any other enterprise and

• That any other enterprise is also in production, distribution or trading of:

▪ Similar goods or services; or

▪ Identical goods or services; or

▪ Substitutable goods or services

An acquisition may be defined, in Indian context, as an act of acquiring

effective control by one company over assets or management of another
company without any combination of companies. Thus, in an acquisition two or
more companies may remain independent, separate legal entities, but there may
be a change in control of the companies. When an acquisition is 'forced' or
'unwilling', it is called a takeover. In an unwilling acquisition, the
management of 'target' company would oppose a move of being taken over. But,
when managements of acquiring and target companies mutually and willingly
agree for the takeover, it is called acquisition or friendly takeover

Sections 5 specifies threshold limits in terms or assets or turnover below

which a merger, acquisition or acquiring of control is not regarded as
acquisition,
REGULATIONS OF COMBINATIONS
Section 6 of the Competition Act,2002 relates to the for regulation of
combinations

For the application of Section 6 of the Competition Act,2002 the combination

under Section 5 of the Competition Act,2002 should be the one which causes or
is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on combination within the
relevant market in India and such a combination would be void.

Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 makes it mandatory for a person or enterprise

proposing to enter into combination to give a notice to Competition
Commission of India within 30 days of : -

➢ Approval of the proposal by the Board of Directors in relation to the merger

or amalgamation

➢ Execution of any agreement or other document for acquisition

After Reciept of the notice by the Competition Commission of India, Sub-

Section (3) of Section 6 states that Competition Commission of India shall
deal with such notice as in accordance with the provisions contained in
Section 29, 30 , 31. The Commission has the power to investigate such
combination from the date of its effect within 1 year (Section 20(1)).

INQUIRY INTO COMBINATION BY COMMISSION

1. The Competition Commission can start an investigation on its own if it

thinks a company's acquisition, control, merger, or amalgamation might
negatively affect competition in India. However, they can't start this inquiry
more than a year after the action took place.(20)(1)
2. When the Commission gets a formal notice about a company's combination
(like a merger), it must check if this could hurt competition in India.(20)(2)
3. he government will review and adjust the financial thresholds (like asset
value or turnover) that determine what counts as a combination that could
affect competition. This review happens every two years, considering factors
like price changes or currency exchange rates.
4. To decide if a combination might harm competition, the Commission looks
at various factors, including;

. Actual and potential level of competition through imports in the market

; 2. Extent of barriers to entry into the market;

3. Level of concentration in the market;

4. Degree of countervailing power in the market;

5. Likelihood that the combination would result in the parties to the combination
being able to significantly and sustainably increase prices or profit margins;

6. Extent of effective competition likely to sustain in a market;

7. Extent to which substitutes are available or are likely to be available in the

market;

8. Market share in the relevant market, of the persons or enterprise in a

combination, individually and as a combination;

9. Likelihood that the combination would result in the removal of a vigorous and
effective competitor or competitors in the market;

10. Nature and extent of vertical integration in the market;

11. Possibility of a failing business;

12. Nature and extent of innovation;

13. Relative advantage, by way of the contribution to the economic development,

by any combination having or likely to have appreciable adverse effect on
competition;

14. Whether the benefits of the combination outweigh the adverse impact of the
combination, if any

PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF COMBINATIONS

The procedure for investigating a Combination, comprise of three steps.

A relevant market35 is identified according to the definition accorded under the

Act, this entails identifying both the relevant product market36 as well as the
relevant geographic market.

2. The Combination is scrutinised to determine whether the combination has an

appreciable adverse effect on competition in the relevant market. The criteria
for such an analysis are laid down under Section 20(4) of the Act.

3. On the basis of (1) and (2), the Commission decides whether the combination
should be approved, rejected or approved with modifications to the
combination. The modifications to the Combinations are made on the basis of
how the anti-competitive effects could be minimised or eliminated.

Procedure in case of notice under sub-section (2) of section 6

Explanation of Section 30 –

When someone sends a notice to the Commission because they're planning a

merger or acquisition (as mentioned in Section 6, sub-section (2)), the
Commission will review the notice. They will first make an initial judgment
based on the rules in Section 29, sub-section (1), and then follow the steps
outlined in that same section.

ORDER OF COMISSION SECTION 31

Approval of Combinations:

 If the Commission thinks a merger or acquisition won't harm competition,

it will approve it.

 If the Commission believes a merger or acquisition will harm

competition, it will not allow it to happen.

 If a merger or acquisition could harm competition but can be fixed by

making changes, the Commission will suggest those changes.

Modifications and Compliance:

 Companies must make the suggested changes within a set time if they
agree to them.

 If companies don't make the changes in time, the Commission will treat
the merger or acquisition as harmful to competition.

Negotiation on Modifications:

 Companies can propose their own changes to the Commission's

suggestions within 30 working days.

 If the Commission likes the companies' changes, it will approve the

merger or acquisition.

 If the Commission rejects the companies' changes, the companies get

another 30 working days to agree to the original suggestions.

 If companies still don't agree after this time, the merger or acquisition is
considered harmful to competition.

Orders and Deadlines:

  If the Commission blocks a merger or acquisition or it's deemed harmful
because companies didn't agree to changes, the Commission can order
that the merger or acquisition shouldn't happen at all.

 The Commission can create a plan to enforce its order if needed.

 If the Commission doesn't decide within 210 days of being notified about
the merger or acquisition, it's automatically approved.

 Time extensions requested by the companies are not counted in the 90

working days deadline.

Void Combinations and Other Laws:

 If a merger or acquisition is declared void, it's as if it never happened, and

other laws will apply to the companies as normal.

 This section doesn't stop other legal actions that might be taken under
different laws.

Power to issue interim orders(Section 33)

If the Competition Commission, while investigating, believes that someone is

breaking or about to break the competition rules related to anti-competitive
agreements (Section 3), abuse of dominant position (Section 4), or combinations
(mergers and acquisitions that could harm competition, Section 6), it can order
that person or company to stop such actions immediately. This order can be
made before the investigation is finished and can be issued without notifying the
person or company being investigated if the Commission thinks it's urgent.

CONCLUSION

The main aim of the Competition Act,2002 is to protect the interests of the
Consumer as understood in the commercial sense of the term as “Purchaser of
goods “and in the larger sense as user of services. The same concept was
explained by the Supreme Court as follows “The consumer is a comprehensive
expression and it extends from a person who buys any commodity to consume
either as eatable or otherwise from a shop, business house, corporation, store,
fair price shop to use private or public services.16 With the change in the
international economic environment the competition standards of the country
also change. Mergers and Acquisitions are taking place at a more pace than
before. Companies are finding out ways to hold a dominant position in the
market. Regulations of Combinations is a necessary implication as the
consumers are not affected. Society is not static and hence for a dynamic society
the law must be dynamic. Our Competition Act, 2002 though has tried its level
best to curb the anti-competitive arrangement in our country but as of now it has
not achieved the required success, hence our Competition Act requires few
amendments in order to satisfy the present scenario in market.