DIRECTOR GENERAL UNDER COMPETITION LAW4 min read

By- Purnima Sharma

The Competition Act in India was established in 2002. Yet, came into power from 2007, The Competition Commission of India had been enabled to address anticompetitive exercises, maltreatment of strength, and against serious anti-competitive mixes in India. The Director-General drives the examination identifying with hostile to serious exercises in the nation. Any request for CCI can be tested in the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).

The Director General leads the examination wing of the Competition Commission of India. Chief General in India alludes to the Director General designated under sub-section 1 of section 16 and incorporates any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Directors General delegated under section 1. The Director General, is normal by the Commission, to help the Commission in researching into any negation of the arrangements of the Competition Act at whatever point required or examine into contradiction of any guidelines or guidelines there under. The Director General has all the powers gave upon the Commission under sub-section (2) of section 36.     Where the CCI upon private grievance or suo motu look at that as a by all appearances case exists it will ask the Director General to explore into the issue.

In Hyundai Motor India V. Rivalry Commission of India and others the High Court thought about whether the Director General is a statutory authority. There are four places in the Act where a reference is made to a statutory authority. They are Section 2, Section 19(1)(b) Section 21 and Section 21A.                                                                                                                                

Section 2 characterizes the term ‘statutory authority’ to come surprisingly close to legal position, following ought to be satisfied-

  • The authority ought to be an expansive, company, board, foundation, or some other corporate. 
  • It ought to have been built up by or under any State or Central or Provincial Act. 
  • It ought to have been so settled to manage creation or supply of merchandise or arrangement of any administrations or markets from there on and it ought to have been built up at any rate for any issue showed therewith.

Section 19(1)(b) talks about the inception of request compatibility to a reference made to the official by a Statutory Authority.     

READ ALSO: DOMINANCE AND MONOPOLY PRACTICE UNDER COMPETITION LAW                   




Section 21 gives that where throughout a procedure before any legal power an issue is raised by any party that any choice which such legal authority has taken or proposes to take is or would be in opposition to any of the arrangement of the Act, at that point such reference to such Statutory position which will think about the assessment of the Commission and in this way give its discoveries recording reasons subsequently on the issues.

Section 21A gives that where over the span of a procedure before the Commission an issue is raised by any gathering that any choice which, the Commission has taken during such continuing or proposes to take is or would be in opposition to any arrangements of the Act whose usage is depended to a legal power then the commission may make a reference in regard of such issue to the legal position. The commission may suo moto make such reference to the legal position.

The High Court held that the statutory authorities alluded to in Section 21 and Section 21A ought to be those other than the Authorities working under the Act. In any case Section 21 and 21A can’t be given an important understanding. Section 21 gives that the statutory authority is vested with a capacity to record discoveries based on the assessment of the Commission. On the off chance that the articulation ‘statutory authority’ in section 21 incorporates the Director-General additionally then the Director general ought to have the position to give discoveries. However, that isn’t the extent of the Act the Director-General is a power comprised to help the Commission.

The High Court additionally held that the statutory authority examined in Section 21A is one from whom the Commission itself can look for an assessment. The Director-General under the Act isn’t skillful to offer any input except leading an examination and helping the Commission in the inquiry started under Section 19. Consequently, Section 19 (1)(b) may be perused and comprehended with regards to sections 21 and 21A of the Act.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *