READ: RGNUL Student Law Review [Volume I Issue 2] on Competition Law

Team Lawctopus would like to thank the personnel associated with RGNUL Student Law Review for providing us with the e-copy of their esteemed journal to be shared in the law student community. We hope you benefit from it!


Dear Readers

Have you ever thought about how Competition Law regulates the Sports legislation of our country? Ever heard of nature of the zero predatory pricing in the context of Competition Law?

Any idea about the landmark judgment of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regarding the restricted free availability of auto spare parts where a penalty of whooping INR 2544.65 crores was imposed on 14 leading Car makers of the country by the CCI?

Read about these interesting issues in the RSLR JOURNAL (Volume 1 Issue 2).

PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION BY DIRECTOR GENERAL UNDER THE COMPETITION ACTBREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

For the purpose of assisting the CCI in conducting inquiries into contraventions of any of the provisions of the Act, the Director General (DG) is appointed by the Central Government under Section 16 of the Competition Act, 2002.

The authors, Atul Dua and Dr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, through their article have dealt with practical flaws and consequential violation of principal of Natural Justice inherently incorporated in the procedure employed for the investigation by the DG under the Competition Act.

They have also, through their article made an attempt suggesting that the CCI may incorporate the “set procedure for conducting investigation by the DG” by appropriately amending the regulations and the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002.

A BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW – ANALYZING ANTI-TRUST CONCERNS IN THE INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR

The authors, Sanchit Srivastava and Shubhashish Chaudhri, have highlighted through their paper the emerging issues in the ongoing battle between profit-oriented entities and the regulatory authorities in the field of drug manufacture, pricing and procurement.

The authors have also suggested the reasons why, and methods by which the CCI can regulate the pharmaceutical sector so as to ensure that the healthcare sector in our nation is not adversely influenced while at the same time there is enough incentive for private companies to invest in the development of new drugs for the patient population.

Their focus has been on the debate that prevails that is whether the legal monopoly of an inventor or creator who has invested his time, labour and capital in coming up with new technology and the competition policy of the State which aims to ensure that monopoly are not used to disrupt market dynamics – taking spotlight in context of the pharmaceutical sector.

THE ESSENTIAL FACILITIES DOCTRINE – A POTENT TOOL FOR MITIGATING THE RIGOURS OF SOCIALLY PERNICIOUS BEHAVIOUR OF MONOPOLISTS

The authors assert that even though the CCI’s quality of analysis and clarity of decisions has been widely appreciated, the regulator has garnered intense criticism for its reticence in using more complex and sophisticated doctrines in order to fully appreciate the nuances that shape and influence the decisions and policies of competitors in a market and this inability has prevented CCI from fully effectuating the idea of fostering a culture of competition and innovation that under-girds the competition law regime in India.

This paper seeks to analyse one such doctrine which the CCI has not fully utilized for realizing the fundamental tenets of the Competition Act, 2002 – the essential facilities doctrine. This paper seeks to explore the efficacy of this doctrine in the Indian context.

HOCKEY INDIA JUDGMENT, 2013 – INTERPLAY BETWEEN COMPETITION AND SPORTS LAWS

The author, Devrupa Rakshit, in a very detailed manner has described the relationship that Sports and Competition Law share.

The sports sector of our country is an emerging profit-yielding field and so its activities are likely to clash with the provisions of the Competition Law of our country. The author has talked about the recent Hockey India Order to highlight the overlapping relation of both the areas.

IS ZERO PRICING PREDATORY OR UNFAIR: MCX STOCK EXCHANGE LTD.  V. NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE

The authors, Shrijita Bhattacharya and Gargi Bohra, have dealt with the concept of zero predatory pricing, whether it’s fair or not and what effects it would have on competitors (not competition).

To substantiate their ideas they have discussed the judgment delivered in the case of MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange, and in the end have given the possible alternatives which could have been adopted by the Competition Commission of India and Competition Appellate Tribunal.

SHRI SHAMSHER KATARIA V. HONDA SIEL CAR INDIA LTD.: A COMMENT

The authors, Kamal Sharma and Anand Swaroop Das, in the above case commentary have given a critical and multi-dimensional analysis of the order.

It includes the impacts of the judgment on government, automobile sectors and its players and have also taken into account the hits and misses of the Commission while delivering the aforementioned judgment.


To read more refer to Volume 1 Issue 2 of the RGNUL Student Law Review HERE.

Read More

Comment Using Facebook

Or Comment Here Anonymously

*

X