During activities in India, the parties are prohibited from entering into anti-competitive agreements. Generally speaking, agreements likely to have or likely to have an adverse impact on competition (AAEC) are anti-competitive agreements. These agreements can be horizontal or vertical. However, the Competition Act 2002 (“Act”) recognizes intellectual property rights and, to facilitate their protection, the Law permits appropriate restrictions imposed by their owners. Similarly, the law frees up agreements between exporters, as exports do not affect markets in India. The Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) has been empowered to order any company or person to modify, discontinue and not renew anti-competitive agreements and to impose penalties of up to 10% of the average turnover of the last three years. Vertical agreements include agreements concluded by two companies at different stages of the production agreement, for example. B between a manufacturer and a seller or between the seller and the distributor. The question of vertical agreements is decided by the General Court according to the principle of the above-mentioned rule of reason. This rule analyses both the positive and negative effects of competition.
In this blog post, Harsha Asnani, student, NIRMA University, Ahmedabad writes about anti-competitive agreements in light of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission also stated that such a distribution structure allowed OEMs to obtain operating prices from their related consumers, improve the operating margin of sales of automotive components compared to the automobiles themselves and have long-term anti-competitive structural effects on the Indian automotive market. The Section provides for a derogation from joint ventures received by the Parties where they increase the efficiency of the production, delivery, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or the provision of services. . . .