CCI’s (in)consistent view

By Kunal Chandra and Gautam Chawla, Trilegal
0
1848
LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link

Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, prohibits and declares void an agreement which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India (i.e. an anti-competitive agreement). The sine qua non for a violation under section 3 is the existence of an “agreement” between two or more enterprises.

Kunal Chandra
Kunal Chandra

In terms of the internationally accepted doctrine of single economic entity, entities in the common control of an ultimate parent, i.e. group companies, are regarded as a single enterprise; and an agreement or understanding among group entities is not prohibited under competition law. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) have recognized the doctrine of single economic entity in their precedents, however in a recent case the CCI appears to have departed from its earlier position.

Previous rulings

In Case No. 52/2012 (decided in November 2012), the CCI dealt with the issue of whether an indirect subsidiary (based on shareholding) was part of the same group and could be classified as a single economic entity.

In that case, the CCI stated that, firstly, to establish a contravention under section 3, an agreement between two or more enterprises must be proved. Secondly, enterprises forming part of the same “group” will be considered as a single economic entity for the purpose of the Competition Act (i.e. not two enterprises but one). “Group” under the Competition Act means two or more enterprises which, directly or indirectly, are in a position to: (i) exercise 26% or more of the voting rights in the other enterprise (increased to 50% from 4 March 2011 for five years); or (ii) appoint more than 50% of the members of the board of directors in the other enterprise; or (iii) control the management or affairs of the other enterprise. Thirdly, an (internal) agreement between two group enterprises will not be considered as an “agreement” for the purpose of section 3 of the Competition Act.

Based on the above, the CCI held that an indirect subsidiary (by virtue of shareholding) was part of the same group, and an agreement between enterprises within the same group to either determine prices or exclusive supply could not be considered as an anti-competitive agreement under section 3 of the Competition Act.

You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.

For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.

你需要登录去解锁本文内容。欢迎注册账号。如果想阅读月刊所有文章,欢迎成为我们的订阅会员成为我们的订阅会员

已有集团订阅,可点击此处继续浏览。
如对集团订阅感兴趣,请联络我们

Kunal Chandra is a partner at Trilegal and Gautam Chawla is a senior associate. Trilegal is a full-service law firm with offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad.

Trilegal_logo_-_BLUE_NEW

Mumbai

One Indiabulls Centre

14th Floor, Tower One, Elphinstone Road

Mumbai – 400 013

Tel: +91 22 4079 1000

Fax: +91 22 4079 1098

Email: kunal.chandra@trilegal.com

gautam.chawla@trilegal.com

LinkedIn
Facebook
Twitter
Whatsapp
Telegram
Copy link