Applications For Filling Posts At C.C.I.

images

 

 

Two of the vacant posts at the C.C.I. are up for grabs, and YOU could get one of them !! (If you fulfill the eligibility criteria ofcourse. 🙂 )

 

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs is inviting applications for the posts which have been lying vacant for some time now.  Furthermore, the last date for receipt of Applications has also been extended to 11th November, 2013. (Not surprising they had to extend it. Just found out about this a few hours ago this side.)

 

 

A Snacker

KFC_KFC_Snackeru_with_Crispy_Strip_Ultimate_Cheese_334132 (1)

An upcoming post on the recent Reference Case No. 01/2012, . M/s Puja Enterprises et al., has been slightly delayed, so here is a snacker till this Friday, by which I hope the post will be ready for upload.

1. Volume 5 of Fair Play is out. For the uninitiated, Fair Play is the Quaterly Newsletter of the C.C.I.

2. Typical of the workings of a Ministry, the Draft National Competition Policy has now been referred to a Committee of Secretaries for “further consideration”. [Press Release]

Why the CCI Google Investigation faces Difficulty.

A recent Economic Times Article states that the “probe by Indian authorities to examine if Google abused its dominant position in the Internet search engine market is progressing at a sluggish pace, mainly due to a lack of understanding on Internet-related issues.” Furthermore, it also stated that “India (presumably through the C.C.I.) has sought the FTC’s help in this matter.”

While the reason stated above is probably true, I feel another important reason the investigation faces difficulty is becaue of the direction the D. G. Office seems to be taking to reach its goal. This is evident from the second line quoted above, where the article states that the C.C.I. is looking for aid from the F.T.C. There is no harm in asking for aid from others, but in this case, the Commission may be asking for aid from the wrong people. One needs to understand that the F.T.C. and the European Commission have SETTLED their cases with Google on the basis of certain commitments they received from the company. (See here for the F.T.C. commitments and here for the E.U. commitments). It is more than evident from their respective press release and the commitments received from Google that both the competition authorities never approached the investigation with an intention to prosecute. Their primary intention was merely to ensure competitiveness without disrupting the market (being the internet search engine market and online advertisement market) to the best possible extent. The merits of such an approach are of course debatable, but are presently outside the scope of this post. What is important is that settlements require a mediative approach (far different from an adjudicatory approach) and this is not the approach the C.C.I. wishes to follow. Even if it wishes to, it as of now can’t, as explained in a previous post.

It is better if the Commission looks eastwards to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (A.C.C.C.) for help. The judgement of the Federal Court of Australia is the only case which Google has lost on allegations against its Adwords programme, which is the primary subject of investigation even in India.Google-confused