1. Welcome

2. COMPETITION ADVOCACY
&
4 CASES ON COMPETITION ACT, 2002
Presenter –
Afreen Khan

3. INDEX
• What is Competition Act,2002
• Features of Competition Act,2002
• Competition Advocacy
• Competition Commission of India & COMPAT
• Cases on Competition Act, 2002

4. COMPETITION ACT,
2002
• The Competition Act, 2002 was enacted by the
Parliament of India and replaced The
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act,
1969.
• After its enactment The Competition Act, 2002
has been amended twice, The Competition
(Amendment) Act, 2007 and The Competition
(Amendment) Act, 2009.
2 Main
Characteristic

5. COMPETITION ACT, 2002 – MAIN FEATURES
• Anti competitive practices (Section 3)
• Abuse of Dominance (Section 4)
• Mergers & Acquisitions (Section 5 & 6)
• Competition Advocacy (Section 49)
https://www.slideshare.net/Narayan92/competition-act-2002-54368706

6. COMPETITION ADVOCACY
• “Competition Advocacy” means those activities which
are conducted to promote a competitive environment
for economic activities.
• Advocacy is the act of influencing or supporting a
particular idea or policy. Effective implementation of
any policy and law largely depends upon the
willingness of the people to accept the law.
• In recognition of the importance of the various
stakeholders, the Act lays emphasis on competition
advocacy initiatives to be taken by CCI (Competition
Commission of India) at three levels –
1. The policy makers (Central and State Governments),
2. The sectoral regulators and
3. The public at large.

7. COMPETITION ADVOCACY
INITIATIVES TAKEN BY
CCI
CCI has taken various initiatives for promotion and creating awareness of
competition law awareness and capacity building in competition matters
as follows-
– National and State level Workshops and Seminars
– Special lectures organized for CCI officers
– Papers and studies published for competition advocacy and for creating awareness of
competition issues.
Jimsgn. (2017, January 25). Concept of Competition Advocacy and Role of CCI in India: A Practical Approach. https://jimsgnblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/concept-of-competition-advocac
and.html#:~:text=Competition%20Advocacy%20is%20one%20of,undertake%20advocacy%20for%20promoting%20competition.

8. CCI
• The objectives of the Act are sought to be achieved through the
Competition Commission of India, which has been established by
the Central Government with effect from 14th October 2003. CCI
consists of a Chairperson and 6 Members appointed by the Central
Government.
• It is the duty of the Commission to eliminate practices having
adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition,
protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade in
the markets of India.
• The Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall be a person, who
is, or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of
a High Court.
• The Chairperson or a Member of the Appellate Tribunal shall hold
office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for re-
appointment.
COMPAT &

9. 4 CASE STUDIES
ON
COMPETITION ACT, 2002

10. 1. MANU JAIN
VS.
HIRANANDANI HOSPITAL, MUMBAI
• A complaint filed by Ramakant Kini, a lawyer, against
LH Hiranandani Hospital in year 2013.
• Manu Jain was refused maternity services by
Hiranandani during the 38th week of her pregnancy.
• Because she declined to avail the stem cell banking
services offered by Cryobanks International India,
with which the hospital had an exclusive partnership.
• CCI has concluded in a report that the hospital is a
dominant player in the field of maternity services in
and around the Powai area of Mumbai.
• Abused its dominance by restricting the patient
choice.
https://www.slideshare.net/Narayan92/competition-act-2002-54368706

11. 2.BID-RIGGING BY MANUFACTURES OF
LPG CYLINDERS
• In 2011, 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.
• 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.
https://www.slideshare.net/Narayan92/competition-act-2002-54368706

12. 3. SHOE COMPANIES PENALIZED FOR
BID RIGGING
• Government of India with respect to a tender enquiry dated June 14, 2011
for conclusion of new rate contracts for polyester blended duck ankle boots
rubber sole. The reference alleged bid rigging and market allocation by the
suppliers, while bidding against the above tender enquiry.
• The Informant had alleged that
(i) the bids made by the Opposite Parties were in a very narrow range
(ii) most of the Opposite Parties had restricted the quantity to be supplied by
them
(iii) most of the Opposite Parties had also fixed the maximum quantity they
would supply to a particular Direct Demanding Officer (“DDO‟). The
Informant contended that these three practice were inconsistent with section
3(3) of act.
https://www.slideshare.net/Narayan92/competition-act-2002-54368706

13. 4. COAL INDIA LIMITED (CIL)
VS
SPONGE IRON MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION (SIMA)
• CIL enjoys a virtual monopoly over the
production and supply of coal as it was
producing over 80% of the coal in India.
• It was alleged that CIL was not adhering to the
terms and conditions in the FSA/MOUs and
conducting themselves in a manner
detrimental to the interest of the SIMA.
• Thus as per Section 4 of the Act, CCI concluded
that there existed a prima facie case of abuse of
dominance.
https://www.slideshare.net/Narayan92/competition-act-2002-54368706

14. Thank you