It is the Commission`s duty to eliminate practices that affect competition, promote and maintain competition, protect consumer interests and ensure free trade in Indian markets. Today, traders form agreements by entering into agreements between themselves to control, control or control the production, distribution, sale or price of goods or services that disrupt the balance of healthy competition and ultimately hinder, control or control the economy. At the 4th Anniversary Opening Conference of the Competition Commission of India on 20 May 2013, The Minister of Finance of the Hon`ble Union Mr P.Chidambaram, in his speech on the conceptual basis of competition, said that “innovation is born of healthy competition, as well as economic efficiency. The ICC may prohibit a minimum aspiration requirement as a vertical restriction if it is or is likely to be the origin of the CEAA in India. To our knowledge, the ICC does not yet appear to have addressed the minimum barrier requirements as a vertical restriction. However, these obligations were considered in the context of the abuse of dominance provisions. For example, faridabad Industries` ICC considered whether a minimum obligation to inspect the purchaser constituted an abusive clause. While the ICC appreciated various commercial justifications for such contractual clauses, it found that the requirement on the purchaser to meet these minimum obligations, even in the event of an emergency termination, rendered the term “unfair” and therefore abusive. The ICC can also call on experts from disciplines such as economics, trade, accounting and international trade to support its investigation.
The DG also has the power to carry out raids at dawn. The ICC and THE DG can often do so and do so for companies outside India. The ICC also has the power to investigate and limit anti-competitive acts or agreements outside India, but to have an AAEC in India. Is there a definition of “agreement” – or its equivalent – in the law of the agreements in your jurisdiction? The concept of pricing the resale was examined by the Commission in the case of Fx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. against Hyundai Motor India Limited4. In this case, the informant had stated that, pursuant to the hyundai agreement, the dealers had been instructed to procure all components and accessories of the automobile only from Hyundai or its suppliers. While working on Hyundai`s allegedly anti-competitive practices, the informant explained that Hyundai had imposed a “discount control mechanism” in which merchants could only grant a maximum rebate and where merchants were also not entitled to grant discounts beyond a recommended area, which would amount to “resale price retention” in violation of Section 3 (4)e) of the Act.