COMPETITION LAW

08.07.2021 – THURSDAY
Section 27 of Indian Contract Act
Competition Law plays an interface with Constitutional Law, Contract law, Company Law,
Trade Law, SEBI, and much more.
Competition law with reservation, article 14, labour law, tort law.
Class reporting – recap of previous class, then within 3 days an elaborate written report.

10.07.2021 – SATURDAY
Let the class know about class reporting system.
Slot 1 is suggested.
TORT LAW AND COMPETITION LAW
Gloucester grammar school case – competition between schools
Tort is about damages – the fear of damages has an interplay with competition law.
Airtel-Jio – price predation issue, CCI said there is no anti-competition practices. This
example is connected with Gloucester case.
Tort law is not codified. But lot of other legislations have elements of competition law like
the MVA, COPRA, EPA, etc. Similarly, competition law also has elements of tort law.
Examples: G shop and Namma Ooru, Baasha autos and other autowalas.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd

12.07.2021 – MONDAY
Dunlop is typically an anti-trust case. This case has been read from the privity of contract pov
previously.
From competition law perspective the contention is on Resale Price Maintenance. Under
Competition Act, RSP is a vertical agreement.
Horizontal agreement is an agreement between people of the same level. Vertical agreement
is an agreement between people of different levels.
In a trade circle a lot of people are involved and there is hierarchy and if there is an
agreement between people on the same level like 2 wholesalers then it is horizontal and say if
there is an agreement between a wholesaler and a retailer then it is a vertical agreement.
In Dunlop it is a vertical agreement as it is between a manufacturer and dealer. Dunlop made
tyres. It did not want them sold cheaply but to maintain a standard resale price. It agreed with
its dealers (in this case Dew & Co) not to sell them below its recommended retail price. It
also bargained for dealers to get the same undertaking from their retailers (in this case
Selfridge). If retailers did sell below the list price, they would have to pay £5 a tyre in
liquidated damages to Dunlop. Dunlop thus was a third party to a contract between Selfridge
and Dew. When Selfridge sold the tyres at below the agreed price, Dunlop sued to enforce the
contract by injunction and claimed damages. Selfridge argued it could not enforce the burden
of a contract between itself and Dew, which Selfridge had not agreed to.
RSP is Dunlop deciding the resale price for the dealers.
JUDGMENT: RSP agreements are valid unless they don’t promote anti-competitive
practices. In this case it is not possible to hold the agreement valid.

ART 14 (RESERVATION) AND COMPETITION LAW

What falls under reserved: education and jobs reservation, certain sectors reserved for govt
only, certain exemptions for small industries.
Essential Commodities Act
MSMED Act
Handloom Industries v. Powerloom Industries both are involved in textile industries.
According to EC Act, certain products are supposed to be manufactured in handloom
industries only.
This kind of reservation exists because these competitors need to be put on the same footing.
But is it anti-competitive in nature? Read up.

13.07.2021 – TUESDAY
What is this reservation about? Why is this one industry given exemption or ‘special
treatment’?
CCI does extensive work on deciding whether policies and laws are competition sensitive or
not.
In India airline industry, airlines and ports can be divided in multiple ways, like domestic v
intl, passengers v. cargo. Ministry of aviation passed a policy, states if anyone wants to enter
into intl airline business that person should have a min no of planes or 5 yrs of service in
domestic sector with 5 planes (number might be diff in originality)
So, is this against competition law?

MSMED Act – under this act MSMEDs have a lot of benefits no such benefits exist for
others, how does this act look like from competition law perspective?

COMPETITON ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS – sir shall share

TRADE UNIONS v TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
The difference between them is that trade unions are registered legally thus have legal rights.
Trade unions and associations can be made of employees only or employers only or both.

Tamil Nadu Vendor’s Association was calling for a ban of Coca-Cola to promote local soft
drinks.
Some people were calling on ban of Pakistani products.
Some were asking for ban on Chinese products.
In Karnataka certain associations said theatre owners should not run Tamil films.
The point being some associations are calling for a boycott on certain goods, else they might
withdraw their support.
Relation between OTTs, theatres and actors releasing their movies by themselves.
BCCI – S S Barmai v. BCCI competition law case.
There are rules put by the BCCI that Indian players unless retired cannot play international
leagues.
Read non-compete clause, confidentiality clauses and NDA, whether these can impinge
competition law?

15.07.2021 – THURSDAY
Relevant Market = Relevant Product Market + Relevant Geographic Market
The entire class went on to discuss the competition assessment regulations.

15.07.2021 – THURSDAY
Non-compete clause, non-disclosure,
Internship time have you signed any such agreement?
What is the scope of these agreements?
These are nothing but employment agreements. Or clauses of employment agreement.
Even an internship or articleship is a form of employment.
Employment can be of multiple types.
NDA or confidentiality agreement is the same, just diff words.
It says that you don’t disclose or use the info to your own benefit.
Eg: working in a bank say for 5 years, you’ll have data access, client info, etc
Now what if you use this data after you leave after 5 years? Does NDA or confidentiality
agreement protect it?
Or,
Say you were working in a law firm, you leave, have your won practice, nor some clients
from firm were impressed from your work and they approached you. Now can the firm stop
you from taking those clients saying that you are poaching them?
Or,
Say you are on a top position, you have a team, now you move to another company, and the
entire team moves with you, what can the employer of your previous do now?
Or,
Employment Bond, deposit some money if you want to move from one company to another
only then we’ll give you NOC or give notice and serve the notice period – determined by
local acts, shops and establishment act – authority is the corporation. Look it up.
Or,
Medical students have 1 year compulsory in rural area, you don’t have a choice as the govt
determines where you go., they also have deposit money wala scene for getting certificates.
Or,
Spamming ads, Dr.Batra’s mails, they had certain docs, some clauses of agreements said, the
docs will not be allowed to have pvt practice, after I resign, I cannot have my practice as doc
in the same vicinity.
Unfair contract terms and labour bill – used to exist

Section 27 – ICA

Which forum will you go and file the case?

White collar jobs ppl cannot come before labour forums.
Software jobs ppl approached the Karnataka HC saying we should also be considered as
industry and thus be allowed to approach labour courts.

All these disputes are individual ones or competition ones?

IPR angle and consumer dispute angle.
19.07.2021 – MONDAY
It typically is an employee’s fundamental right to work anywhere they want. But conflict of
interest needs to be taken care of.
Section 27 also applies.
Say there is a company where you are employed, and you are working on a software, you put
up data in that and now you move to another company, can you use the data that you had
come up with for developing the software in the previous company? Who owns that data?
Hence, employee may have the FR to work anywhere they want but the employer may want
to protect their IPR.
What about data that is stored in your mind? Can Non-compete clauses prohibit your mind
usage as well? how will anyone prove or determine where the data is coming from?
American Express Bank Ltd. v. Ms. Priya Puri, Delhi HC
In a way IPR and Competition Law go on opposite ways, IPR monopolizes things, whereas
competition law talks about availability for, laissez faire of sort.
Indian Competition Act, 2002 – Section 3(5) – for protecting IPR rights if you are putting up
restrictions that would usually not be valid, shall be valid here.
Sony Ericsson Case – Delhi HC
Can IPR cases be decided by CCI?
Say an issue with TRAI?
Percept D' Mark (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Zaheer K han and Another
Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd
In the case of Amir Khan Productions Private Limited v. Union of India, the Bombay HC
ruled that competition commission has the power to deal with intellectual property cases.

20.07.2021 – TUESDAY
1. In many countries there is only one forum wherein the competition disputes as well as
consumer disputes are handled by one forum – unified model.
In many countries there are diff forums for both the purposes – divisible model like India.
For unified find examples.

2. Consumer is a relevant role in both comp law and consumer law – find the definition for
consumer in both the laws – is there any difference? If yes then what and why differences?
And similarities?

3. Do we have a definition in India for customer?

Legislative def followed by judicial definition and if there is legislative definition then find
judiciary’s definition on it.
Lastly, dictionary definition.
Leg or judicial definitions are usually contextual, dictionary def is usually broad.

Interplay between Consumer law and Competition Law – students gave opinions like
removes monopoly good for consumers, removes unfair trade practices thus benefitting
consumers.

4. Say you are purchasing a car for yourself – are you a consumer?
Now you are purchasing a car for using it as an ola or uber – are you still a consumer?

5. 4 classes of consumer disputes:

1. Defect of goods
2. Deficiency of services
3. Unfair Trade Practices
4. Restrictive Trade Practices
Check the definitions of these 4 and provide your own examples.
Find if these are under competition law as well, if not same at least analogous.

22.07.2021 – THURSDAY
Belaire Owners Association v. DLF
It was only in 1969 MRTP act was passed, till then no law on this.
Then in 1986 COPRA came in.
MRTP was the first to deal, if not directly indirectly, with consumers and competition.
Competition Act, 2002
And if you count the COPRA 2019, then that as well.
Hence, 4 legislations on the same.
LPG – came in.
Now we are going in to full-on privatization.
You need to check the time, govt, other prevailing policies when the legislations were passed,
that helps to convey the real purpose of the Act.
 MRTP Act
PREAMBLE
An Act to provide that
• the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic
power to the common detriment,
• for the control of monopolies,
• for the prohibition of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices and
• for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

With regard to the first point:

Article 14
Article 39 – Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to sub serve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth
and means of production to the common detriment.
The MRTP Act is completely passed based on 39(c), it looks like MRTP was passed to fulfil
the DPSP. 39 (b) can also apply.
You can consider Bentham’s maximum distribution for max good.
Article 38 also relevant.
Article 38 – State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall
inform all the institutions of the national life.
Thus, MRTP is a welfare legislation of sort.

With regard to the second point:

What is a monopoly?
One seller with no substitutes, and multiple buyers. For instance, railways is completely
under the control of government.
Regulation, restriction, control, prohibition, all are different terms.
MRTP does not prohibit monopoly, it only controls it, as in, it says that we’ll give you certain
rules to have monopoly, if you don’t follow them, we’ll take your business away.
With regard to the third point:
What is trade?
Section 2(x) of Competition Act, 2002
“trade” means any trade, business, industry, profession or occupation relating to the
production, supply, distribution, storage or control of goods and includes the provision of any
services;

What is practice?
Section 2(m) of Competition Act, 2002
“practice” includes any practice relating to the carrying on of any trade by a person or an
enterprise; - this word needs a good discussion.

What is restrictive trade practice?

Preventing, distorting or restricting competition. In particular, to obstruct the flow of capital
or resources into the stream of production.

24.07.2021 – SATURDAY
Sections 2 and 3 will be important from competition law perspective.
Give good importance to the amendments.
Objectives of CPA – welfare legislation – first point in preamble – interests of consumers.
MRTP, CPA 1986, Comp 2002, CPA 2019 – preambles comparative table
Deduction – all these acts want to protect consumers. MRTP not there directly so search
where is it indirectly.
What is the comparative aspect?
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF CPA, 1986
1. It is a benevolent, progressive and social welfare legislation. – Progressive as in, open to
amendments.
Example of webinars – this trend never existed before pandemic, hence things develop
according to changing times and the law also needs to be dynamic for that purpose.
2. To provide inexpensive, speedy and summary redressal of consumer disputes. – summary
redressal means the procedure is summary
3. The Act makes the dictum, caveat emptor (‘buyer beware’), a thing of the past.
4. When we approach the market as a consumer, we expect value for money, i.e., right
quality, right quantity, right prices, information about the mode of use, etc. But there may be
instances where a consumer is harassed or cheated. To avoid such situations, the Act lays
down the rights of the consumers and it also provides for their protection, promotion and
enforcement.
5. Other Legislations – Preventive or Punitive in Nature
CPA 1986 – Compensatory in Nature

26.07.2021 – MONDAY
3. The Act makes the dictum, caveat emptor (‘buyer beware’), a thing of the past.
Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) is a theory of the past (sec 160F of SGA).
Niti Ayog Report – Sale by sample/deception
Until 1986 Act the responsibility was on the buyer, due diligence, the buyer needed to prove
it in the court of law, thus onus on the buyer.
After 1986 Act, caveat venditor came in and more responsibility was set on the seller. If the
product is substandard or not of good quality, the buyer can file a case against the seller.

4. When we approach the market as a consumer, we expect value for money, i.e., right
quality, right quantity, right prices, information about the mode of use, etc. But there may be
instances where a consumer is harassed or cheated. To avoid such situations, the Act lays
down the rights of the consumers and it also provides for their protection, promotion and
enforcement.
Consumers expect value for money - for example some food is available in a normal hotel for
say 5 INR and the same food in a five-star hotel is available for 500 INR. We can quantify
satisfaction by associating it with money.
Traders usually try to cheat consumers, and duplication of products is a very common
practice in India.
The 1986 Act enunciated various rights that are available at the consumers’ disposal. (Look it
up), it is the duty of the consumer councils to promote these rights.

Case Laws
1. India Photographic Co. Ltd. vs. H.D. Shourie, AIR 1999 SC 2453
The Act was enacted as a result of wide spread consumer protection movement. To achieve
the objectives, the Act has to be interpreted in a rational manner. Rational approach and not a
technical approach is the mandate of law. Follow a rational approach and not just the
technical approach. The aim is to protect the interests of the consumers and efforts should be
made to fulfil the same.
2. Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital, AIR 2000 SC 3138
Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect a
large body of consumers from exploitation. The Act provides for an alternative system of
consumer justice by summary trial. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial
powers for redressal of consumer disputes and it is one of the postulates of such a body that it
should arrive at a conclusion based on reason.
The court has acknowledged summary trial, but it also acknowledges, Alternative System of
Consumer Justice- i.e., there are already some options available but this acts as an extra or
alternate remedy and does not take away the rights of the consumers to go for other remedies.

Quasi-judicial power to the body under the act.

Who / what is CCI?

Are the primary regulator? Or Quasi-judicial? Or legislative?
It passes a lot of rules and regulations. But as for consumers it is primarily a QJ body.

SECTION 3, CPA 1986– ACT NOT IN DEROGATION OF ANY OTHER LAW

Relevant Provision
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of
any other law for the time being in force.
CPA 2019- Section 100: The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Both are same, so the old case laws apply exactly.
Non-appearance by the advocate – leading to loss of the client – can he go and file a case
against the advocate in the Consumer Forum. If the advocate says that the matter cannot be
taken up by the Consumer because remedy is also available to the Advocates Act. Thus, first
the jurisdiction lies under Advocates Act only and client’s case should be rejected.

Essential Elements
Section 3 deals with the scope of CPA.
 The remedy provided under CPA is an additional remedy.

 It is in addition to any other remedies that are already available to the aggrieved
persons/consumers which can be enforced by way of civil suit.
 Presence of alternative remedy will not be taken as a bar of jurisdiction under CPA.
Important Points
CPA created specific forums for specific purposes. It does not offend any statute or any other
law.
PM Bakshi – Remedies available to a Consumer
4 Remedies are open to a Consumer whose life or property is damaged by a professional
person rendering a professional service.
1. Contract Law - Civil Court - Damages for Breach of Contract

2. Law of Torts - Civil Court - Unliquidated Damages

3. Disciplinary Remedy - Disciplinary Tribunals or Institutions - Examples: Doctors,

Lawyers, Nurses etc.

4. Criminal Law - Criminal Court - Examples: Doctor - Prosecution for Negligence, Section
304A, 336, 337 and 338.
Section 3 does not override any other provision and it - before consumer forum one cannot
take plea that the already in civil court so can’t hear. But in civil court, one can take such plea
and the civil court can dismiss the plea because it is already in the consumer court.
Adequate Alternate Remedy
DK Gandhi Case
National Commission in 2007 stated that the should be covered. Now the case is pending in
the SC and the Bar Council of India (appellant) has stated that as the remedy is already
available to deal with the lawyers’ dispute and therefore the lawyers’ dispute will be heard by
them only.
https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/why-do-lawyers-enjoy-immunity-against-wrong-practices/
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/bci-warns-consumer-affairs-minister-against-inclusion-
of-lawyers-under-consumer-protection-act-153760
In these kind of cases, the Consumer has four alternative remedies, in addition to the remedy
provided under CPA. If the consumer chooses CPA and files a complaint, then the opposite
party cannot take the plea that alternative remedies are available elsewhere and therefore his
complaint is liable to be rejected.
Case Laws
1. Commercial Officer vs. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, 1994 (1) CPR 357
Existence of an alternative remedy under the Arbitration Act, 1940 does not debar a
consumer to have redress under CPA.
2. General Manager, Telecom BSNL vs. Mr. Krishnan, AIR 2003 Ker 152
Section 7B of Telegraph Act, 1885 which provides for arbitration does not oust the
jurisdiction of Consumer Forum under CPA.
CPA is a special law.
3. Udaipur Cement Works vs. Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board
Presence of an arbitration clause in an agreement between Company/Manufacturer and
Consumer shall not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
4. The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha
(Dead) through Lrs. and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 448
Section 190 and 156 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 does not oust the
jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.
5. Srimathy vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 Mad 427
Claim against advocates by Client under Advocates Act, 1961 will not prevail over CPA.

Question:
Lawyers – practice as professionals, say a client X has a problem with lawyer A , X feels that
A is not good, unprofessional, substandard, etc, now can X file a case against A in a
consumer forum?
Lawyers accused on the basis of their personal opinions – are they expected to change their
opinions? Today they might have one opinion and it might change tomorrow, so does having
a wrong opinion be a basis for filing a case?
Find out more on this - Advocate Act-1961: BCI derives power from this & Bar Council Act.
section 85 - procedure for Misconduct, disciplinary action.
Clients give confidential info to a lawyer; lawyer lost the case now can the client take action
against the lawyer?
Gandhi v. Mathias (still pending before SC)
Whether lawyesr are excluded explicitly by CPA? excluded service? if not can the Advocate
Act ban the complainant from complaining against lawyers under CPA?
Lawyers can take preliminary objection saying that I am not under your Jurisdiction under the
Advocate Act. But does it really have any ground?

28.07.2021 – WEDNESDAY
1986 act section 100, 2019 act section 3.
Can an advocate take before a consumer forum saying he doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction?
Now, misconduct is not defined anywhere, in different cases it means different things.
See, section 35 of advocates act for punishment for advocates.
Can such a defence be taken where the advocate says that the client’s complaint should be
dismissed in the consumer court because an alternative remedy exists in the Advocates’ act?
NO! because cpa is only an additional remedy, see sec 3.
Section 35 (3) of Advocates Act – exhaustive or not?
2 schools exist.
Now, can a client file 2 cases parallely? A sit in the consumer forum and also one civil suit, is
this possible.
PM Bakshi - Remedies available to a Consumer
4 Remedies are open to a Consumer whose life or property is damaged by a professional
person rendering a professional service.
1. Contract Law - Civil Court - Damages for Breach of Contract
2. Law of Torts - Civil Court - Unliquidated Damages
3. Disciplinary Remedy Disciplinary Tribunals or Institutions Examples: Doctors, Lawyers.
Nurses etc.
4. Criminal Law Criminal Court - Examples: Doctor - Prosecution for Negligence, Section
304A, 336, 337 and 338.
In the Gandhi case it was argued that only BCI has jurisdiction over cases concerning
advocates, so do not go to consumer forums. This case is still pending in the sc so not
established rule yet.
Now, if that is the case the all bodies like the medical association, CA association, etc all of
them will present the same argument, is that how things can work then?
29.07.2021 – THURSDAY
DEFINITION OF CONSUMER – SECTION 2(1)(d)
The Act for the first time introduced the concept of ‘consumer’ and conferred express
additional rights on him. It is interesting to note that the Act doesn’t seek to protect every
consumer within the literal meaning of the term. The protection is meant for the person who
fits in the definition of ‘consumer’ given by the Act.
Definition of Consumer
1. As under the Act
2. As provided in the Dictionary
What is the difference between the Consumer and Customer?
Customer looks like a broad word, whereas the Consumer looks narrow.
Definition of Consumer: Section 2(1)(d), CPA, 1986
(d) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or
partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is
made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such
goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any
beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for
consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned
person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial
purposes;
Explanation—For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use
by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the
purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
Definition of Consumer: Section 2(7) CPA, 2019
(7) "consumer" means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or
partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is
made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such
goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any
beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for
consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned
person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial
purpose.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—
(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought
and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-
employment;
(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or
online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-
level marketing;
The only difference between the two definitions- only with regard to the second explanation-
so because they are exactly same, the precedents also stand valid and will be applied in the
same manner under 2019 Act also.
ANALYSIS: Essential Elements of Consumer.
 consideration which has been paid or promised: Means: it deals with present and
future contract
 deferred payment: Deferred payment- not paying the complete money in a go, but
paying it later
 Includes any user of such goods, other than the person who buys: example:
Donoghue v Stevenson – case decided under the Privity of Contract and to avoid such
situations, the CPA is drafted in this particular manner. Example: Gifts, product
bought by the mother for her child- even though mother is paying money, it is actually
the child who is consuming the product and therefore the baby can also be termed as
the Consumer. Consumer: who pays the money, who subsumes, consumes and
exhausts.
  Services Beneficiary: Beneficiary of the services just like the above, is the consumer
and therefore will be entitled in the protection. Both are parties will be liable and can
be sued.
 Use with the Approval of the such person who is owns it: i.e., the services should be
legally transferred to the end consumer. Example: Buyer of the Stolen product cannot
claim himself to be consumer and thereby claim right.
Commercial Purpose: I am purchasing a car. Cost: 10 lakh rupees and use it for personal uses.
In the second case, I am purchasing 5 cars and use them for cab services.
Who is consumer in example 1 and 2.
Question: Commercial Purpose are not included in the Consumer Protection Act?
Answer: It is a welfare legislation and commercial purposes are money oriented- if the same
is ruled out-where does the remedy lie?
1. Competition Law (as very wide definition of the Consumer is provided under
Competition Act)
But: Even though it has wide definition, but it deals with the cases, which have competition
concern at large.
2. Civil Remedy (Contractual Remedy)
At present for commercial purpose consumer then only remedy is available under contractual
law.

Who is not a consumer – Resale or Commercial Purposes, Services rendered free of charge
or under contract of personal service.
1. Smt. Pushpa Meena vs. Shah Enterprises Rajasthan Ltd
Purchase of jeep for commercial purposes - transportation of passengers for hire
2. Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute
Section 14 Limitation Act - Exclusion of Time
3. Chairman, Board of Examination, Madras vs. M.A. Kader
Student not a consumer
4. Lucknow Development Authority vs. AK Gupta
Compensation for Mental Harassment - House building Activities is a service under Section
2(o)
5. Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha
Medical Services are covered under the definition of service - but does not include free
service rendered at a Government Hospital

Definition under Section 2(f) of Competition Act, 2002

The definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, includes any buyer
or user of goods or services, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for
resale or for any commercial purpose. However, the definition under the Competition Act,
2002, recognizes a person who buys or uses goods or services for commercial purpose or
for resale, as a consumer. In this way, the Competition Act aims to protect the larger public
interest from anti- competitive practices.

SALIENT FEATURES
1. Section 9 - Establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies
To provide inexpensive, speedy and summary redressal of consumer disputes, quasi-judicial
bodies have been set up in each District [District Forum] and State [State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commissions] and at the National level [National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission].
2. Section 1(4) - Goods and Services
The provisions of this Act cover all ‘goods’ and ‘services’, unless specifically the nature of
transport, telephone, electricity, housing, banking, insurance, medical treatment, etc.
3. In the complaint/appeal/petition submitted under the Act, a consumer is not required to pay
any court fees, but only a nominal fee.

31.07.2021 – SATURDAY
Research proposal and project guidelines discussion.

02.08.2021 – MONDAY
We are using commercial purpose as a source of livelihood but not with any kind of great
business purpose in your mind then it should be excluded as commercial purpose. This is thus
an exception to the commercial purpose clause in the 1986 act.
Say you are purchasing a car and are using it to ply passengers, you are the driver, it is your
source of livelihood. – so many people believe that this should no be brought under the
ourview of commercial purpose.
Photocopy machine and photocopy shop – he has 2 machines and using these machines to run
a business, generally speaking this should be called commercial purpose, but many people
were saying that this is not a commercial purpose because not a huge business agenda, self-
employment and source of livelihood.
Hence amendments were brought to the 1986 act, and such exceptions were made.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the expression "commercial purpose"
does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the
purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

Definition under Section 2(f) of Competition Act, 2002

The definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, includes any buyer
or user of goods or services, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for
resale or for any commercial purpose. However, the definition under the Competition Act,
2002, recognizes a person who buys or uses goods or services for commercial purpose or
for resale, as a consumer. In this way, the Competition Act aims to protect the larger public
interest from anti- competitive practices.

Now, it’s evident that the competition act has a wider ambit than CPA.
Take these examples
1. A man buys 10 cars for cab service – 5 cars malfunction after some time. He goes to the
consumer forum and the forum says that he isn’t a consumer and he has to solve the issue
based on what was there in the contract. So, can he now go to the CCI for remedy
because it defines a consumer in a broader way?
Types of cases under CPA – Cause of Action:
1. Defect
2. Deficiency
3. UTP
4. RTP

Types of cases under Competition Act – Cause of Action:

1. Anti-competitive agreement under s.3
2. Abuse of Dominant Position
3. Case relating to M&A
2. Going to a shop to purchase and the person says that I get a discount coupons because I
purchased a very costly watch and he gives some 3 coupons of Rs. 1000 each, now when
you try redeeming the coupons, the shop keeper says that you have to make a purchase of
Rs.15,000 to redeem the gift coupons.

A proposal: consumer act is there to catch the small fishes, where competition act is to catch
the big fishes. IS THIS TRUE?

3. I’m going to purchase a high-end car – say 30 lakhs, later I find that the car isn’t
functioning properly, so I give it for service to only find that the services offered by this
car dealer is very defective and they are also forcing me to take an insurance with them
only. Because of this I move to CCI, can the CCI say that you go file a case in the
Consumer Forum. Can CCI do this?

4. Real estate developers and promoters will show empty land and tell you what they are
planning to build there. They’ll ask you to take advance booking telling you that the rates
are low if you pre-book. Now I’m a buyer and I come in an agreement with a real estate
promoter – I have to pay my monthly instalments properly and the promoter will deliver
me the product for possession in habitable condition. Say he is not able to deliver and
now it has been 3 years.

4.1 Say he has promised a similar delivery to 100 different buyers and the due date is already
over and he hasn’t delivered yet, so 100 people are now aggrieved. Now that numbers
have added up does it become a competition case?

Akhil Bhansali v. Skoda

Gajinder Singh Kohli v. CCI
Sanjeev Pandey v. Mahindra & Mahindra
Rajendra Aggarwal v. Shoppers Stop
Sesharatnam v. Sudarshan Reddy
D.K. Srivastava v. UP Housing & Development Board

Akhil Bhansali v. Skoda

Let’s look at some definitions first:
(f) "defect" means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency,
purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being
in force under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner
whatsoever in relation to any goods;
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality,
nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for
the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a
contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users
and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking,
financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or
lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or
other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a
contract of personal service;

When I buy a particular good or service, I expect a certain quality and standard. But WHO
DECIDES THESE STANDARDS?
In certain cases:
1. Law or a regulator is there to do so, like for FSSAI, TRAI, etc
2. The trader himself shall put out a standard, either expressed or implied, seller
needs to maintain the same.

(r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the
sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method
or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely; —
(1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible
representation which, -
(i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade,
composition, style or model;
(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade;
(iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as
new
goods;
(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance,
characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;
(v) represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which
such seller or supplier does not have;

We have attempted to understand the definitions of trade and practice in previous classes –
add a prefix – UNFAIR – something deceptive or not correct or fraudulent or disparaging
ads, etc

"restrictive trade practice" means any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy,
hire or avail of any goods or, as the case may be, services as a condition precedent for
buying,
hiring or availing of other goods or services;
EXAMPLES OF RTP
Hoarding of Onions and selling it at very high prices.
In order to buy X product from trader A, one needs to buy a chair first.

Bundling agreements – services not available individually, they come up together – a defence
by trader who sells something with something else.

Competition Act Definitions

No enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons shall enter into
any agreement in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of
goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse
effect on competition within India
Section 3 – vertical and horizontal agreements.
3(5) – exception clause – IPR and export exemption.
AAEE clause may get an exemption – not shall.

05.08.2021 – THURSDAY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 3 AND SECTION 4
Section 4 - "No enterprise or group" - Enterprises / Group of enterprises
Section 3 - Enterprises + Individuals

SECTION 4
Abuse of dominance
Conditions -
1. Enterprise
2. Sufficient market power - in a dominant position
3. Abuse of dominance
Dominance ≠ Dominance over one player in the market BUT it is the dominance of one
player over all the other players in a market.
Calculated by economic tests LIKE HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index). Squaring the market
shares of each competing party in the market and summing the result number. - relative size
distribution of the firms in a market.
SECTION 5 AND 6
Merger inquiry
2 companies decide to merge + competition issue = CCI comes into picture.

Akhil Bhansali v. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC Online CCI 52

Legal Issues:
1. When does a "consumer issue" become a "competition issue".
2. Whether there is a "pure consumer dispute" or "individual consumer dispute" which
does not have competition concerns.
3. Whether such an individual consumer dispute is to be heard only by the consumer
forum and not by the competition commission.
Parties:
Informant: Akhil Bhansali - Madras High Court lawyer
Opposite Parties:
OP 1: Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd.
OP 2: Bernhard Maier, CEO of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd

Facts:
Arguments Raised:
 Section 3 violation - Anti-competitive effect as there is an Exclusive agreement -
There is only one dealer and the services is poor.
 Section 4 violation - Abuse of dominance

Questions
1. Definition of the term "Competition dispute" in Indian Competiotion law or International
competition law? → No definition
2. Scope of a competition dispute?
Telefonaktiebolaget Im Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India, 2016 SCC OnLine
Del 1951 - CCI looks into disputes which are in rem (against all) and not in personam
(against an individual).
Harshita Chawla v. Whatsapp Inc and Facebook, 2020 SCC OnLine CCI 32 - The
commission had provided that "the Act has been conceived to follow an inquisitorial system
wherein the Commission is expected to investigate cases involving competition issues in rem
and not to establish the rights and liabilities of a party in personam"

3. If there is a definition for the term Consumer dispute?

Consumer Protection Act of 2019 - under Sec 2(8) consumer dispute has been defined as "a
dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been måde, denies or disputes the
allegations contained in the complaint".

4. When can an Individual consumer dispute become a competition dispute?

In Labour law - Before 2A-SC held that an individual dispute can become a industrial dispute
if two conditions are satisfied:
1. It was sponsored by a trade union
2. It was sponsored by a significant number of workers
However, in the case of Rajendra Agarwal v. Shoppers Stop Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine
CCI 62 the court held that:
Individual consumer disputes cannot be treated as a competition concern.
Subhash Yadav V. Force Motors Limited and Ors -
CCI is present to PROTECT and PROMOTE fair competition in the markets in India. For
protecting individual consumer interest, there is the Consumer Protection Act.

5. Remedy sought by Akhil Bhansali?

1. Appoint reputed dealer in Chennai - who is unconnected to the existing dealer.
2. List of every spare parts and its maximum retail price.
3. Sale of spare parts without seeking for service charges.
4. Disclosure to the customers about the customs and other duties on the spare parts.
Therefore, his primary grievance is relating to the QUALITY OF SERVICE provided.

07.08.2021 – SATURDAY
The word consumer dispute has two components, the word consumer and dispute. A dispute
arises only when one person makes allegations towards any other person – and they don’t
accept the allegations.
Is there a definition for competition dispute? – NO! – But why?
Consumer complainant informant – are these all the same?
Who can file a consumer case? Who can file a competition case?
In 1986 act as well as 2019 act, clause e and clause 8 defines consumer dispute.
Consumer + dispute. According to the CPA, the term consumer dispute referes to a case
where consumer makes a complaint, written complaint, respondent denies the allegation.
Competition dispute has not been defined. In the CPA, 1986 and 2019 law, consumer dispute
is clearly defined. Competition law is a complimentary legislation to CPA. Why there is no
definition for competition dispute? o legislative definition. Why?
Under Consumer law, private disputes are there. Consumer disputes. Problem between seller
and service provider, buyer and seller. Consumer is getting affected by the practice of certain
seller. But in competition law, disputes are more of public in nature. Not worried about one
individual and another individual.
Consumer, complainant, informant: for the next class, research on the three words, whether
same or any different. Locus standi – right to file a case. Exception to locus standi rule, PIL.
Anyone can go and file a case against anyone. Who can file a consumer case? Can anyone?
Who can file a competition case? Should they prove a locus standi?
For a person to file any case for competition law, he/she should have the affect on him. Akhil
Bansali case, does it have any public character. If the court have accepted the demand, there
may be people who did not file the case, but will get benefit.
Consumer, usually compensatory damage, will benefit one person. Making good the loss
suffer. Competition law, remedy at large, more of a penalty or a fine.
Exam: distinguish between public cases and private cases, and whether competition disputes
are public or private in character? Put in a tabular format and answer the character of public
and private disputes.
Locus standi, character, compensation or penalty, case laws and example.
What kind of dispute competition law and consumer law deals with?
Individual consumer/competition dispute? Labour law, there is individual dispute v industrial
dispute. Labour dispute.

Akhil Bhansali v. Skoda

The prayer: (para 7)
The person does not claim compensation. Car issue but no compensation being asked by the
person. He asked cost for the case. For each and every spare part, this is the max MRP. Avoid
these kinds of situations and provide a list. Remedy is public in nature. The kind of remedy
he is asking for is kind of public in nature.
Skoda is abusing its dominant position. There are certain stages, delineate the relevant
market. Whether the person is dominant? Whether the person has abused the dominance?
Easy rule. Commission did not even enquire.
In this case CCI is saying that the primary issue is of deficiency of service. Bhansali is trying
to present a consumer case as a competition case.
(i) In this particular case, primary dispute is a deficiency of services dispute. The
dispute is against gurudev motor company ltd. not a party to this case.
Commission says Akhil bansali is trying to project comnsumer dispute as a
competition dispute. (CCI arguumnet)
(ii) The informant has filed no substantive evidence of his contention. Question of
public private character. PIl related matter, letters can be taken into consideration.
No detailed evidences. Allegation is good enough. CCI tells here that substantive
evidence must be there. Competition cases are private in nature and no public
character and locus standi must be followed. General rule, party who alleges
particar fact, they bear theburden of porving it. It I am a plaintiff in civil cases,
burden starts with me, allegation made must be supported by evidences. Only after
I substantially prove my point, BOP is shifted.
In cmpetititon law, BOP, can CCI take a matter if no locus standi? When will CCI
proceed? What sort of evidentiary proof
(iii) If at all, the services given to bansali was satisfactory in nature, he would not have
come to CCI. Consumer stuff here, it is a trigger point. He received a bad service/
(iv) This matter relaeed to abuse of dominance was already decided in the case of
Shamsher Kataria and Honda car case. CCI appellate body, COMPAT, the enuiry
was not proper, CCI gave a judgment, from the appellate body, matter is thre is
Supreme court and is pending. Whether there exists abuse of dominance? A party
maybe dominant in one market but not in other market. Dominant in Chennai but
not in Bhopal. Dominance differs from product to product, place to place, time to
time. Dominant today, may not be tomorrow.
Case comment: no summary of the judgment. Critically comment on the
judgment, find loopholes, lacune, criticisms of the judgment.
(v) Though the outline looks like a competition dispute, this distinction bw
competition and consumer is still not resolved. Competition law is very recent and
is 19 years only. Satisfactorily resolved, nooooooooo! CCI is only giving their
opinion, NCLAT and Cmpat, unless SC gives a guideline, unresolved matter,
 (i) Order paragraph: Commission used the word as individual consumer dispute.
Only an individual is affected no larger competition concern. Purely an individual
concern. Only one single person, no larger coemption issue. We have CPA, there
is alternative remedy. Adequate alternative remedy. Subhash Yadav case, this case
is repeatedly quited. Two different laws, both have different target. Promotion of
competiotn and unfair trade prace avoided. But individual consumre and trader,
there is CPA. Susing these arguments, there is no prima facie case here. No
contravention at all.
(ii) Correctness of the judgment. Section 3 of CPA. Consumer remedy is only an
additional remedy. Can there be a situation, where a case can be filed both under
the consumer forum and comeptiotin for a different remedy. Is there any other
provision in the competition act?

10.08.2021 – TUESDAY
Mr. Gajinder Singh Kohli v. Genius Propbuild Private Limited
Para 12 to 14 – for relevant markets
Buyer and seller – real estate transactions. Will have the features of both goods and services.
Real Estate market in India – lot of laws govern it, TOPA, Registration Act, RERA, state
laws, etc
In this case RERA wasn’t working on its best.
The main outline of this case is regarding dominant position, without going to the consumer
court or seeking nay other relief.

Cause of action clause.

Looks like a simple clause, but analyse closely. Are there any unfair terms? If the buyer fails
to pay money in the prescribed time then has to pay @ 24%, whereas if the seller defaults,
then has to pay refund @ 10% interest.
In India we do not have a law governing unfair terms of a contract.
There is 103rd law commission report1 and Unfair (Procedural And Substantive) Terms In
Contract Bill, 20182, this indicates that there is a need to have laws governing unfair terms in
contract.

Here, we need to note the phrase where the scope of CCI can be questioned. Can they delete
as clause or pass a direction to do so?

1
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report103.pdf
2
http://164.100.47.4/billstexts/RSBillTexts/AsIntroduced/unfair-E-21619.pdf
Preliminary objection on ii by the OP. Further, makes arguendos.

Section 62 in the Competition Act, 2002

62. Application of other laws not barred.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition
to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Section 3 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition
to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

ARE THESE 2 THE SAME?

Section 60 in the Competition Act, 2002

60. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time
being in force.

Are Sections 60 and 62 in contradiction with each other?

Usually, these sections apply when 2 or more laws / 2 or more commissions or forums are
involved.
Here, the OP claims that CCI has no jurisdiction, only consumer forum will have jurisdiction.
Sony Ericsson v. ------ (Delhi HC case)
There is a hierarchy that needs to be followed – read Section 62 first. Then read Section 60.
Sec 60 is more like an exception clause to Sec 62.
Under consumer forum no one take a preliminary saying only some other forum can take the
case, whereas, the same does not apply in CCI.

11.08.2021 – WEDNESDAY

In this para it looks like the CCI is trying to imply indirectly that it is a UTP case and thus it
cannot take it.

Paras 11-14: relevant markets

Whenever an abuse of domination case comes up these are rher step by step analysis put into
action:
1. Determination of market
2. Dominance is there or not?
3. Abuse of dominance?
Only of all these stages are cleared then it becomes a case of AoD under Sec 4.
So, paras 11-14 deal with the 1st stage.
Para 15: to understand how to determine dominance. And para 15 deals with 2nd stage.
DK Srivastava vs. UP Housing and Development Board, CCI 2018
Similarities:
Real estate problem

Diff:
1. In Gajender case b/w buyer and seller and seller was pvt body
in this case seller is a govt body.
2. Gajender: Aod alone
Here, sec 3 also, anti-competitive agreement and AoD

Relevance and angles

Concept of enterprise is discussed
Is there anything called sovereign immunity? Any immunity for govt related bodies under
comp law?
Aspect of 3(1)
Para 11

Judgment: haven’t brought the concept of consumer laws here, decided the case on its merits.
3(3) deals with horizontal agreement and this is not a horizontal agreement because buyer and
seller are not in the same footing, thus based on this CCI did not inquire into this aspect at all.

3(1) – stand-alone/umbrella clause.

DK Srivastava vs. UP Housing and Development Board, CCI 2018

Minimum price value purchase required to redeem discount coupon.
The person has brought case under Sec 3.

Remedies claimed by the informant. Might look outlandish from the pov of CCI.
CCI did not entertain this case.

Sanjeev Pandey Case

Sesharatnam v. Sudershan Reddy
Whether consumer cases or contract cases b/w private parties be admissible in CCI even
when no competition is being hampered?
Sec 3 case – anti competitive agreement
Case not entertained.

Is it good to have competition and consumer forum unified? Or dichotomy is okay?

12.08.2021 – THURSDAY
Gajender Singh Kohli case:
not an issue of unfair trade practive at all. But an abuse of dominant position. Abusive
dominance, there are three stages, 1. To determine the market. 2. Determination in
dominance, 3. Abuse of the dominance. Question on relevant market, etc. commission stated
that the dominance is determined by the market power. Case was dismissed as no dominant
posiison
DK Srivatava v UP Housing Development Board
Anti competition caluse in the agreement. Similar to previous case but here the real estate
seller was a private party.
Horizontal agreement, buyer and buyer………seller and seller,,, etc. vertical agreement:
buyer and seller. If the informant wanted to claim an anti comepttion agree, section 3 (4)
Rajendra Agarwal v Shoppers Stop
1. Onus on consumer to seek out all informant or the seller must provide all information.
2. Competition issue or consumer issue
3. Remedy sought were very personal.
4. Sanjeev Pandey v Mahindra and Mahindra: relevant market question was there.
5. Informant confused it with the old consumer act. This is CCI and not consumer
forum,
Sesharathnam v Sudarshan Reddy
1. Case regarding contract and section 3 of the CPA.
2. When ther is no real effect on competition, can this case be taken up?

D/B consumer dispute and competition dispute. Competition looks into the bigger picture that
this market as a whole. In Australia there is same forum for sort of disputes. But in India,
there are two different forums for 2 disputes.
Today’s class
Consumer Law v Competition Law:
1. both protects the interest of consumer. Under consumer law, this protection is more
direct objective but in competition, it is indirect objective. When competition happens in a
smooth manner, consumer right is by default protected. Consumer law we have direct
treatment. Competition law, they do it indirectly, first set right the market competition.
2. Enforcement agencies: consumer and competition agency. Which is a better
approach? Consumer protection is important for both so is it better to have two distinct laws?
A unified law with a unified agency, or a divided law with a divided agency? India v United
Kingdom. Indian and UK almost followed a similar approach. Initial days, unified authority,
MRTP Act that is, (next point of discussion), the MRTP has provision of both consumer
interest as well as competition. But right form day 1, no provision for consumer. In the
original form, more abour prevention and regulation of monopoly. Consumer was not there is
the very forst draft. In 1980s, by amendments, the concept of consumer was introduced, UTP,
RTP etc.
• Stage 1: no consumer at all, only competition, prevention regulation and control of
monopolies
• State 2: Law was amended to include the consumer concerns
• Stage 3: as separate law in now being created, CPA 1986, separate enforcement
mechanism, district, state, national commission, no regulatory authority but different
commission, quasi-judicial. MRTP had regulatory body, MRTP commission. Consumer
forum, tribunals.
• In 2002, competition act, pure competition act, promotion of competition and all
aspects. In 2019, CPA, 2019, there is separate regulator also. The law as it stands right now:
2021- there are two different laws with 2 different enforcement agencies.
• This is a conscious decision taken. In 2019 CPA and at the same time, competition
law underwent amendments. If at all there was a need to unify both, they would have done it
back then.
Australia:
They have unified both laws together. Australia thinks that when a competition case is there,
consumer issue is there too. And when there is consumer case, invariably competition issue
arises. Therefore no need of separate. One single law, UTP, RTP, anti-competitive
agreement, merger, etc, is there, one single legislation and one single enforcement agency.
United Kingdom:
Initial days, Competition and consumer together. There is CMA now, competition and market
authority, a separate body. And for consumer, there is separate body.
Now the question is, which approach is better? Merits and Demerits of both the approaches
1. Under Section 4, abuse of dominance, people will say that this person has abused
dominance by imposing unfair condition in the contract (case discussed in class). Even
though unfair, UTP, we will consider abuse of dominance as a query. Section 3 mostly about
anti competitive agreement. When consumer (Rajendra Agarwal + real estate cases, CCI
discourages them). How accessible are these competition agencies? District, national both,
there are consumer forum. Competition forum, are they there everywhere? Regulator is
generally there in one place, ex: SEBI, Mumbai only. Branches maybe there, effaces, but
don’t do the decision making part.
CCI sits at new Delhi. There are branches but only for outreach reasons as of now. Advocacy,
etc. cannot file a case three. Only at Delhi CCI.
Is it better to have multiple competition branches also? Why only one solution at Delhi.
2. When consumer law, it thinks that, consumer is always a weaker party and tend to be
exploited by other [arty, that is, usually seller, there is a dominating party. Idea behind
consumer law is that, to protect them against various forms of exploitation. Competition law
does not believe that. Section 3 and Section 4, it uses these parts to protect the consumer, the
roots taken in completely different.
Whether unified is better or separate? (from the pov of students)
a. DLF case: does it really matter if one person bring, then consumer, but a lot of people
bring then competition issue? Shoppers Stop, unreasonable price for so many consumers?
Whether the number matters?
b. There can be a case of both consumer and competition issue. 2 separate proceeding,
expensive etc.
c. Unified is better as the cases seen yesterday, if unified forum, dealt under the same
court, sooner remedy.
d. Fast disposal won’t come in. overlap of remedies and procedure.
Whether a consumer law problem can be a problem for competition also?
a. Look into the legislative history behind both Indian and UK part. Legislative
background, MRTP, CPA, 1986, Compt Act, CPA, 2019
b. MTP, RTP and UTP. Concept of UTP has been almost demarcated to the consumer.
RTP is still there in consumer as well as competition law, in the name of anti-competitive
agreements.
c. MTP: repealed. Monopoly is bad in the market. Prevention of MTP. MTP is there in a
way under Section 4, modified as abuse of dominance. Older law, there was a general
presumption, that size is bigger, monopoly and dominance. Post 2000, many Asian an S
Asian countries developed competition law. Nepal, 2007 competition law, draft ahs still not
come into force :p the law itself is relatively new. India some 12 years of experience but done
in a peaceful manner.
d. DLF v Belaire Owner’s Association: association of ownership in this case. Real
estate: resident form owners association, they file a case of abuse of dominance against the
seller, DLF, abused the market position. Unfair sale condition. Unfair sale condition and not
uniform. A big residential plot, 400 flats. What if you cannot satisfy the condition, not deliver
the flat on time to one person, what if to so many people. Deadline was today but for another
3 years I don’t deliver the flat. All the flat owner coming together, whether consumer or
competition? Similar cause of action against one seller, can CCI entertain the case? 300
people filed
CCI entertained the matter and passed the order against DLF. There is a proper competition
concern here. Dominant position and abused his dominance. Unfair trade practices is also
there, so there is it not a consumer dispute? DLF objected to CCI’s jurisdiction, more of a
real estate problem, CCI does not have jurisdiction, etc. specific performance under contract
law. I’ve done what was specified in the contact, now your turn.
Later DLF agreed to the jurisdiction. if this case is brought under UPR, what are the various
kind of UTP present in this case?

16.08.2021 – MONDAY
Different forms of abuses when in dominant position
One form is exploitative- the case is established on these grounds here.
CCI imposed a hefty penalty, almost 630 crores.
The case then went to COMPAT and it ruled in the same manner.
Here, multiple people are filing the case together against the same person, what would have
been an individual consumer dispute became a competition dispute. Question is whether this
is a on time thing or not.
The agreement was modified by the CCI, in a real estate case, typically out of CCI’s job.
Sections 53N Awarding compensation. —
(1) Without prejudice to any other provisions contained in this Act, the Central Government
or a State Government or a local authority or any enterprise or any person may make an
application to the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate on claim for compensation that may arise
from the findings of the Commission or the orders of the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal
against any finding of the Commission or under section 42A or under sub-section (2) of
section 53Q of the Act, and to pass an order for the recovery of compensation from any
enterprise for any loss or damage shown to have been suffered, by the Central Government or
a State Government or a local authority or any enterprise or any person as a result of any
contravention of the provisions of Chapter II, having been committed by the enterprise.
(4) Where any loss or damage referred to in sub-section (1) is caused to numerous persons
having the same interest, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the
Appellate Tribunal, make an application under that sub-section for and on behalf of, or for
the benefit of, the persons so interested, and thereupon, the provisions of rule 8 of Order 1 of
the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall apply subject to the
modification that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall be construed as a reference
to the application before the Appellate Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Tribunal
thereon. Explanation. —For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that—
(a) an application may be made for compensation before the Appellate Tribunal only after
either the Commission or the Appellate Tribunal on appeal under clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of section 53A of the Act, has determined in a proceeding before it that violation of the
provisions of the Act has taken place, or if provisions of section 42A or sub-section (2) of
section 53Q of the Act are attracted.
(b) enquiry to be conducted under sub-section (3) shall be for the purpose of determining the
eligibility and quantum of compensation due to a person applying for the same, and not for
examining afresh the findings of the Commission or the Appellate Tribunal on whether any
violation of the Act has taken place.

This case was decided when RERA was not functioning in its full form. What would have
been the case if RERA was there then?

INTERPLAY BETWEEN MRTP AND COMPETITION ACT

They can be considered as laws in furtherance of DPSPs
SBS Raghavan Committee Report
Copy notes from sir’s notes.
In the MRTP Act, consumer interest was the guiding principle.
JK Industries talks more about consumer interest.
I. Basis of MRTP Act, 1969: Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSP) in the
Indian Constitution

Article 38 – State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and
political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.
Article 39 – Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State
 The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing
(b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so
distributed as best to sub serve the common good;
(c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

II. Preamble to the MRTP Act – Objectives

An Act to provide that

 the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic
power to the common detriment,
 for the control of monopolies,
 for the prohibition of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices and
 for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.3

Out of these five, the first two have been de-emphasized after the 1991
Amendment to the Act. The emphasis has not only shifted to the three last mentioned
objectives, but they have been re-emphasized. Yet to the extent that monopolies tend to bring
about monopolistic trade practices, the Act provides for their surveillance.
Briefly, the Act is designed to guard against different aspects of market
imperfections. For instance, a merger which can increase the dominance of the combine or
has resulted in a large share in the market can be looked at in terms of the provisions of the
Act and the objectives governing them.

III. Comparison with the Preamble to the Competition Act, 2002

An Act to provide, keeping in view of the economic development of the country,

 for the establishment of a Commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on
competition,
 to promote and sustain competition in markets,
 to protect the interests of consumers and
 to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets, in India, and
 for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

India announced its new economic policy in the year 1991 which signalled a decisive
shift from ‘extreme government regulation’ to ‘liberalization, privatization and

3
Though Unfair Trade Practices (UTP’s) are now covered by the MRTP Act (via the 1984
Amendment), the Preamble has not been amended to specifically name them. It is felt that UTP’s
belong to the same genesis as monopolistic and restrictive trade practices. UTP’s, as such, is a mere
extension of the concept of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices, and may be considered as
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto for purposes of the Preamble to the Act.
globalization’. Accordingly, the new Act takes into account the modern issues of
globalisation, WTO etc. besides the shortcomings of the now repealed MRTP Act, 1969.

IV. Important Undefined Terminologies in the Preamble to the MRTP Act

a. Concentration of Economic Power

This expression has not been defined in the Act, although dealt with in Part A of
Chapter III, which was later omitted by the Amendment Act of 1991.
b. Common Detriment – Synonymous with Prejudicial or Detrimental to Public
Interest

This expression is also not defined in the Act.

c. Two Principles from MIC Report

i. securing the highest production possible, and

ii. ensuring that it is achieved with the least damage to the public at large and
secures to them the maximum benefit.

As per Monopolies Inquiry Commission (MIC) Report, “these two principles

indicate important considerations for the formulation of the legislative policy, viz., we need
not strike at concentration of economic power as such, but should do so only when it
becomes a menace to the best production (in quality and quantity) or to fair distribution.”
Clearly, what is directed to be guarded against is not concentration of economic
power per se, but such concentration as may be to the common detriment, and is found
contrary to the public interest. The determination of common detriment, therefore, would
involve a process of weighing and balancing and also involve certain value judgments
based on considerations of public interest.
The expression “common detriment” has been used in the Preamble in connection
with concentration of economic power and the expression “prejudicial or detrimental to
public interest” has been used in Sections 27 and 27A of the Act. These two expressions
have to be regarded as synonymous in the context of the objectives of the Act. In fact, the
expressions ‘common detriment’ or ‘prejudicial to public interest’ or ‘detrimental to public
interest’ and ‘common good’ are only the negative and positive aspects of the concept of
‘public interest’.
R.L. Aggarwal, J. in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. MRTP Commission4
“The basic feature and the paramount consideration which pervades throughout the
statute are the public interest, the common good and to keep a watch and control on the
operation of the economic system of the country so that it does not result in the concentration
of economic power to the common detriment.5

4
1979 49 CompCas 686 Bom.
5
Ibid, at para. 15.
 The Government acts in public interest. The Commission acts in public interest.
Public interest is writ large in every act and function of the Commission and the
Government. Reference to “common” here, I mean in the Preamble, I suppose, is to the
common man, the weaker section of society, the have-nots, the consumer, but it does not
intend to include the manufacturer, supplier and distributor.6”

17.08.2021 – TUESDAY
d. Public Interest synonymous with Consumer Interest

The term ‘public interest’ has several facets. In Chapter III, after the deletion of
Sections 20 to 26 by the Amendment Act of 1991, this expression continues to appear in
Sections 27 and 27A, which deal with division of undertakings and severance of inter-
connected undertakings respectively. In the context of the MRTP Act, it covers consumers
interest, as well.
In re J.K. Industries Ltd. Case7
“The Commission would be most reluctant to interfere with a trade practice which
results in relief to consumers, unless there are compelling considerations and conclusive
evidence to show that the practice is motivated by predatory factors. To afford maximum
possible protection and relief to the consumers is one of the most important objectives of the
MRTP Act. Therefore, the trade practice of selling of tubes and flaps below the cost of
production indulged by the J.K. Industries Ltd. Is not predatory in nature and therefore not a
restrictive trade practice.”
e. Control of Monopolies

The Preamble states that the Act seeks to provide for control of monopolies. The said
expression has neither been defined in the Act, nor any specific regulatory measures have
been provided in the Act to curb monopolies. In common parlance, monopoly power refers
to the market power possessed by a monopolistic or oligopolistic undertaking. The
definition of ‘monopolistic undertaking’ has been omitted by the Amendment Act of 1984.
Reference to control of monopoly, therefore, can only be construed to mean the regulation of
market power, actual or potential, enjoyed by an undertaking, in the context of the provisions
relating to Monopolistic Trade Practices (MTP) under Chapter IV of the Act.
f. Prohibition of Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices

The Preamble of the Act refers to the prohibition of monopolistic and restrictive trade
practices. The MRTP Act is based on the principle of ‘abuse’ and not ‘prohibition’. The
Act does not declare these trade practices illegal ipso facto. On the contrary, a balance is
struck between the injury caused as a result of such trade practice and the reasonableness

6
Ibid, at para. 16.
7
RTP Enquiry No. 28 of 1984.
thereof in the context of benefits accruing thereby in support of which the savings and
gateways provided in Sections 328, 37(3)9 and 3810 of the Act may be pleaded.
Thus, though the Preamble refers to prohibition of such practices, in reality, the
Act seeks to regulate and control them. The monopolistic and restrictive trade practices,
which are applicable both to ‘goods’ and ‘services’, become illegal only after passing of a
‘cease and desist’ order by the Central Government or the Commission, as the case may be.
Certain exceptions
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall restrict—
(i) the right of any person to restrain any infringement of, or to impose reasonable conditions,
as may be necessary for protecting any of his rights which have been or may be conferred
upon him under—
(a) the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957);
(b) the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970);
(c) the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) or the Trade Marks Act, 1999
(47 of 1999);
(d) the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (48 of
1999);
(e) the Designs Act, 2000 (16 of 2000);
(f) the Semi-conductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 (37 of 2000);
(ii) 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 of goods or provision of
services for such export.
Section 54 - Power to exempt
The Central Government may, by notification, exempt from the application of this Act, or
any provision thereof, and for such period as it may specify in such notification—
(a) any class of enterprises if such exemption is necessary in the interest of security of the
State or public interest;
(b) any practice or agreement arising out of and in accordance with any obligation assumed
8
Monopolistic trade practice to be deemed to be prejudicial to the public interest, except in certain
cases:
For the purposes of this Act, every monopolistic trade practice shall be deemed to be
prejudicial to the public interest, except where
(a) such trade practice is expressly authorised by any enactment for the time being in force; or
(b) the Central Government, being satisfied that any such trade practice, is necessary
(i) to meet the requirements of the defence of India or any part thereof, or for the security of
the State; or
(ii) to ensure the maintenance of supply of goods and services essential to the community; or
(iii) to give effect to the terms of any agreement to which the Central Government is a party,
by a written order, permits the owner of any undertaking to carry on any such trade practice.
9
Investigation into Restrictive Trade Practices by Commission:
No order shall be made under sub-section (1) in respect of
(a) any agreement between buyers relating to goods which are bought by the buyers for consumption
and not for ultimate resale whether in the same or different form, type or specie or as constituent of
some other goods;
(b) a trade practice which is expressly authorised by any law for the time being in force.
10
Presumption as to the Public Interest.
by India under any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries;
(c) any enterprise which performs a sovereign function on behalf of the Central Government
or a State Government:
Provided that in case an enterprise is engaged in any activity including the activity relatable
to the sovereign functions of the Government, the Central Government may grant exemption
only in respect of activity relatable to the sovereign functions.

Section 2(h) in the Competition Act, 2002

(h) “enterprise” means a person or a department of the Government, who or which is, or has
been, engaged in any activity, relating to the production, storage, supply, distribution,
acquisition or control of articles or goods, or the provision of services, of any kind, or in
investment, or in the business of acquiring, holding, underwriting or dealing with shares,
debentures or other securities of any other body corporate, either directly or through one or
more of its units or divisions or subsidiaries, whether such unit or division or subsidiary is
located at the same place where the enterprise is located or at a different place or at different
places, but does not include any activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign
functions of the Government including all activities carried on by the departments of the
Central Government dealing with atomic energy, currency, defence and space. Explanation .
—For the purposes of this clause,—

V. Outline to MRTP Act

Chapter I: Preliminary – Sections 1 to 4

Chapter II: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission – Sections 5 to
19
Substantive Provisions
Chapter III: Concentration of Economic Power – Sections 27, 27A and 27B
Chapter IV: Monopolistic Trade Practices – Sections 31 and 32
Chapter V: Restrictive Trade Practices and Unfair Trade Practices 11 – Part A (Sections
33 to 36) and Part B (Sections 36A to 36E)
Chapter VI: Control of Certain Restrictive Trade Practices – Sections 37 to 41
Chapter VII: Power to Obtain Information and Appoint Inspectors – Sections 42 to 44
Chapter VIII: Offences and Penalties – Sections 45 to 53
Chapter IX: Miscellaneous – Sections 54 to 67
Current Competition Act also has a similar outline, but it has only 4 substantive provisions.

11
Justice Rajindar Sachar Committee recommended that a separate chapter should be added to the
MRTP Act defining various UTP’s. Accordingly, the 1984 amendments to the Act brought UTP’s
within its ambit.
 VI. MRTP Act is inspired from various foreign legislations

The provisions on restrictive trade practices, including the resale price maintenance,
are substantially based on the U.K. legislations and particularly the Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, 1956 and the Resale Prices Act, 1964. Likewise, the newly introduced
provisions on unfair trade practices are influenced by the U.K. Fair Trading Act, 1973.
The anti-trust legislations in U.S.A., notably the Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890 the
Clayton Antitrust Act, 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act, 1914 as also the
Australian12 and Canadian13 legislations on the subject have also been a guide in framing
the provisions relating to Monopolistic, Restrictive and Unfair trade practices.

19.08.2021 – THURSDAY
VII. Scope of MRTP Act

The regulatory provisions in the MRTP Act apply to almost every area of business:
production, distribution, pricing, investment, purchasing, packaging, advertising, sales
promotion, mergers, and amalgamations and take-over of undertakings (provisions relating to
mergers, amalgamations and take-overs were deleted in the MRTP Act by the 1991
amendments to it). They seek to afford protection and support to the consuming public by
reducing, if not eliminating, monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices from the
market.
Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002 – Clause 1 – very similar thing it says.

VIII. Act Not Applicable in Certain Cases

Section 3 of the MRTP Act provides that unless the Central Government by
notification, otherwise directs, this act shall not apply to:
a) any undertaking owned or controlled by a Government company.
b) any undertaking owned or controlled by a Government.
c) any undertaking owned or controlled by a corporation (not being a company)
established by or under and Central, Provincial or State Act.
d) any trade union or other association of Workmen or employees formed for their
own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.

12
Australian Trade Practices Act, 1974. It is now replaced by Part IV of the Competition and
Consumer Act, 2010.

13
Canadian Competition Act, 1889 was passed one year before the Sherman Act in the United States.
According to some legal historians, it was the first competition or antitrust statute in the world to, at
least in theory, control monopolies and price-fixing.
 e) any undertaking engaged in an industry, the management of which has been taken
over by any person or body of persons in pursuance of any authorisation made by the Central
Government under any law for the time being in force.
f) any undertaking owned by a co-operative society formed and registered under any
Central Provincial or State Act relating to co-operative societies.
g) any financial institution.
Now, such undertakings, except those owned or controlled by a Government
Company or the Government, which are engaged in specified items of defence production,
atomic energy and industrial units under the currency and coinage division of the Ministry of
Finance have been subjected to the provisions of the MRTP Act.

Sovereign commercial and economic functions.

UTP not in the comp act.

IX. Restrictive Trade Practice – Section 2(o)

A trade practice which has, or may have, the effect of preventing, distorting or restricting
competition in any manner and in particular:
i) which tends to obstruct the flow of capital or resources into the stream of
production, or

ii) which tends to bring about manipulation of prices, or conditions of delivery or to

effect the flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services in such
manner as to impose on the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions.

Similar section is now present in CPA, 2019.

Ex post and Ex ante provisions

1. Ex- ante Provisions (priori)
Some conducts are proactive in nature in which you need a prior permission from the CCI to
even start it. The CCI steps in even before any wrong happens.
Section 5 and 6 are of this nature where they regulate certain combinations but not prohibit
them.
Such combinations which might cause AAEC conditions has to be submitted to the CCI and
to be approved by them. Therefore not all the combinations are to be notified in prior.
Question Relating to Locus Standi
Right to file a case – available to that person

ADD RANA’S NOTES

21.08.2021 – SATURDAY
Relevant Definitions from Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 2(5) - complainant
Section 2(6) - complaint
Section 2(8) - consumer dispute

Relevant Definitions from Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Section 2(1)(b) - complainant
Section 2(1)(c) - complaint
Section 2(1)(e) - consumer dispute

The term complainant stays even now.

CCI GENERAL REGULATIONS, 2009

These regulations are almost like the procedural guidelines – the parent Act can be the
Competition Act, 2002.

nformant and opposite party’s details should be there. Can be in party or adv represented.
SHALL contain – mandatory presence is required.

2.
Party is a neutral term, can refer to the informant or the OP.

2 (j) – reference

COMPETITION ACT
Locus standii is taken off from competition act, so are there any safeguards for abuse of this
relaxation? YES, Sec 44&45
Section 44 - Penalty for making false statement or omission to furnish material information

Section 45 - Penalty for offences in relation to furnishing of information

Section 18 –

Samir Agrawal v. ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

The case has 3 orders – CCI, NCLAT, SC
CCI
Case decided on its merits.
The OP did not raise locus standi issue, neither did the CCI point out any such concerns.

NCLAT
Para 9, 10 – locus standi discussed
The word aggrieved has been used in NCLAT judgment – CCI would never use this word –
shows that the case is narrowed down.

The allegations made are that – the pricing algorithm of Ola and Uber
Surendra Prasad v. CCI and Ors,. COMPAT 2014 – up for discussion next.
23.08.2021 – MONDAY
Para 9 – locus
Para 15 -
Para 16 – ratio – the word any person means that the person should have suffered any
violation of legal rights or should be a beneficiary of services involved.
If there was no locus – then they should have stopped there and dismissed the case, but
despite that NCLAT judges proceeded to decide and the case and said that they did not find
any anti-competitive problem here.
SC verdict as well, they did not comply with NCLAT.

Harshita Chawla v. WhatsApp Inc. & Facebook Inc.

Surendra Prasad v. CCI and Ors

FILL CONTENT
Reliance Agency v. CDAB
Para 82-86
CCI said we are not worried about who the informant is, we care about the problems notified.

ORDERS PASSED BY CCI ARE 'IN REM':

1. Telefonaktiebolaget lm Ericsson vs. CCI, 2016 Delhi HC, at para. 169
2. Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association vs. Federation of Western India Cine
Employees, CCI Case No. 45 of 2017

Matrix Info Systems Private Limited vs. Intel Corporation, CCI Case No. 05 of 2019, at
para. 42:
Antecedents of the Informant cannot be a ground for the Commission to not take cognizance
of an abusive conduct of any entity.

ABOUT CCI

The concept of independent regulators came in India only in 1990s.

Election Commission of India is the only regulatory body that existed before 1990s, however,
it is not a statutory regulator, it is a constitutional regulator.
Point being – there are types of regulators based on different parameters:

Origin:
1. Constitutional – ex: ECI
2. Statutory – ex: CCI, TRAI

Area of expertise:
1. Sector Specific – ex: TRAI, SEBI,
2. General Regulators – ex: RBI, CCI
3. Professional Regulators – ex: BCI, ICA

CONCEPT OF STATE
SOP – 3 wings – L, E and J
SoP is about no overlap of functions of L, E & J – but there is always some overlap
Now, what is CCI? L, E or J body? Or a state?
Or does it have all the L, E and J powers? Is that valid?

Ram Dutt v. UoI

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1029167/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22690435/
24.08.2021 – TUESDAY
Mahindra Case – 2 judgments
How CCI was created and why Comp Act was challenged on the first day itself?
Raagavan Committee Report – it was established in order to determine whether a comp act
was required. We had the MRTP back then.
What was the nature of CCI?
NOTES IN BETWEEN
Arun anandagiri v CCI and v. ICAI
https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/932013_0.pdf
tamil Nadu film distributors v. CCI (Madras HC case)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160849233/?type=print

One school of thought says regulatory function is nothing but excutive/administrative

functions.
Other school of thought says

Power to make regulations

64. (1) The Commission may, by notification, make regulations consistent with this Act and
the rules made thereunder to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such
regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) the cost of production to be determined under clause (b) of the Explanation to section 4;
(b) the form of notice as may be specified and the fee which maybe determined under sub-
section(2) of section 6;
(c) the form in which details of the acquisition shall be filed under subsection(5) of Section
6; 101[(d) the procedures to be followed for engaging the experts and professionals
under sub-section(3) of section 17;
(e) the fee which may be determined under clause (a) of sub-section(1) of section 19;
(f) the rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at the meetings of the
Commission under sub-section(1) of section 22;
(g) the manner in which penalty shall be recovered under sub-section(1) of section 39;
(h) any other matter in respect of which provision is to be, or may be, made by regulations.]

Law - parliament
rules
regulations – regulator

Asking to pay fine and penalty

Power to issue interim order
Power to punish for contempt
Are these restricted only to judicial functions or can be administrative as well?

Mahindra judgment
Para74

Is CCI a tribunal exercising judicial functions?

Or,
CCI is primarily a admin body and is doing investigative functions, and if it’s doing other
functions they are secondary.