Yup. the title says it all. 🙂
Will start updates as soon as the next significant competition law issue arises. Of course, there are some very important competition law developments, both in India and abroad, which have taken place recently so will try to directly or indirectly cover them through other posts.
Unfortunately, due to my hectic work schedule (what with a dissertation, an internship and LLM. preparations !! ). I am unable to find time to properly update this Blog on a regular basis, which is why i’m now having to force myself to take a break from posting on this forum. Â In other words, there will be no more new posts on this Blog till the end of May.
I understand that there will be lot of new developments (not to mention some important Orders of both the CCI and COMPAT) during this period but regretfully, I will not be writing about them. However, I will continue to put up relevant news updates and other intersting articles on the facebook  page of the Blog.
Till then, cheers. And hope to see you once again soon. 🙂
A competition law co-blogger recently complained about how the European Commission was turning into a “settlement Junkie”. Â While this is a debate which no doubt all EC competition law jurists and lawyers will seek to actively participate in and discusss, the post did get me thinking on any future prospective settlements with the CCI in India.
As far as I know, the CCI has till date not settled any case either related to an anti-competitive agreement or an abuse of dominant position. And on a perusal of the Act, there is a good reason. The Commission doesn’t have the power to settle cases !! Â No section of the Competition Act seems to allow the CCI to settle a case if it wishes to do so. The Section which seems to come closest to granting such a power to the Commission may be Section 36 (Power of the Commission to Regulate its Own procedure). However, that the power to settle a case can be interpreted under this Section seems a doubtful proposition.
Of course, this may not necessarily be a bad thing, as we can see from the above mentioned blog post.
My article titled “Status And Effect of Cooperative Joint Ventures under Indian Competition Law” has recently been published in the Competition Law Reports (January, 2013 Edition)
In the article, I elaborate in detail the competition law regarding cooperative joint ventures and present the measures and methods which may be adopted by the Commission when it is finally called upon to handle such issues. Part I being the introduction, Part II elaborates upon the concept of cooperative/contractual joint ventures and provides a definition for the phrase and elaborates as to what exactly would constitute a cooperative joint venture. Part III elaborates in detail the EU law regarding cooperative joint ventures, including the important Orders and Judgements in EU competition law on the same. Part IV focuses on the competition law (or anti-trust law) in the United States of America (U.S.A.) regarding such agreements. Part V deals with the problem of cooperative joint ventures under the Competition Act, 2002 and suggests the preferred method of analysis which may help the Commission best analyze such ventures or agreements.
The case of N. Sanjeev Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Hire Purchase Association, Case No. 49/2012, which was recently dismissed by the Commission, highlights two important developments which are a must in Indian competition jurisprudence.:
1. Â It is necessary that the Parliament pass the Competition Amendment Bill, 2012 (see here and here for our previous posts on the same) at the earliest to recognise the concept of collective dominance under the Competition Act. Personally, I am of the opinion that too many genuine cases are getting dismissed due to this wide lacuna within the Act.
2. The Commission should apply a certain amount of pragmatism while deciding the relevant market in a particular case. For example, in this case, it is obvious that the market should have been, as submitted by the informants, “private auto financiers market in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh.” The decision of the CCI that there was no case to differentiate private auto financers and other banking/non-banking entities which are in the business of extending automobile finance is clearly erroneous in light of practical realities. It is a well known fact that autowallahs would never qualify for an automobile loan with any decent bank, which is the exact reason why they need to resort to such financers in the first place, thus creating a clear distinction between the two different financial markets.
This is to inform all that I will not be writing any more posts on the DLF competition matters currently pending before the COMPAT (and which in all probability will end up before the Supreme Court irrespective of who wins). This is because I’ve now become a part of the research team working on the matter (as an intern) and so it’s best if I refrain from discussing it too much.
To give you the latest (and final update), the matter is presently being heard on a daily basis. Furthermore, DLF filed two more appeals against the supplementary orders passed by the CCI which came up for hearing today. To be fair to DLF, the appellants aren’t just nitpicking. They have raised some extremely testing questions. Justice Sirpurkar appeared deep in thought by the end of the day on what course of action to take.
Honestly, the hearings are a lot of fun !! 😀 Justice Sirpurkar has a good sense of humour and the counsels aren’t exactly being polite to each other. 😉 Do come and watch if possible. Next date is on 12 February, 2013, Tuesday.
The CCI has just come out with the Supplementary Order in the case of Belaire owners’ Association v. DLF, Case No. 19/2010 (Main Order/Supplementary Order) which contains the Modified Buyers’ Agreement (begins from page 25 of the document). A clause by clause analysis of the new agreement would not be only be time consuming (which unfortunately, due to ongoing examinations, I presently don’t have) but would till a large extent be mundane and irrelevant. What is important to summarise are the following points:
1. The CCI has clarified that any such agreement, including the modified agreement drafted by it in this case, would have to comply with the laws and regulations of the respective state (in this case, Haryana) and no agreement, whether framed by the Commission or any other party, could supersede any such Acts,  Rules and Regulations.
2. The CCI decided to basically draft an entirely new agreement along with all the modifications it considers necessary rather than specify specific clauses which require amendment.
Furthermore, this Order in no way affects the merits of DLF’s appeal before the COMPAT. Rather, the reason the COMPAT has directed the CCI to draft a Modified Buyers’ Agreement was to clarify the Commissions stand to help in the effective adjudication of the appeal.Â
The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has recently launched an online certificate course on Competition Law and IPR.
Enrollment is currently open for the February – March 2013 Session.
Indian Competition and Anti-Trust Blog 