INTERIM ORDERS, EXTRATERRITORIALITY AND PENALTIES UNDER COMPETITION LAW4 min read

BY- KAVITHA REDDIMALLA

Historical background of competition law in India

India due to the introduction of new economic policy and opening of the Indian market to the world full stop the new economic policy of 1991 which brought about liberalization privatization and globalization of the Indian economy. To promote competition in the Indian market committee was appointed in 1999 to suggest a modern competition law in line with international development to suit the Indian conditions.

Competition act came into existence in January 2003 and the Competition Commission of India was established in October 2003. Back states that it should be the duty of the commission to eliminate practices having an adverse effect on competition to promote and sustain competition in the Indian markets.

Interim orders under competition law

  • Section 33 of the competition act deals with interim relief or interim orders.
  • During an inquiry if it comes to know that an act is in contravention of subsection 1 of section 3 of subsection 1 of section 4  or Section 6 then Commission may order, grant a temporary injunction restraining any party from carrying on such act.
  • During the inquiry before the commission if it comes to know that Import of any good is likely to continent subsection 1 of section 3 of subsection 1 of section 4 or section 6, by order granted a temporary injunction restraining any party from importing of such goods until the conclusion of the inquiry.

Extraterritoriality under competition law

  • Section 32 of the competition act deals with extraterritorial competition law.
  • Section 32 of competition law confirms the power over the commission of enquiry into the agreement referred in section 3 that has been entered into outside India which has an appreciable adverse effect on the competition in the relevant market in India. Reception imposes the commission to take jurisdiction over dispute taking place outside India if it produces an adverse effect within its territory.

         The mechanism for controlling anti-competitive carried on by person having the location of their operation at someplace in India and or, therefore, directly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of India courts and tribunals. Thus, it is an evident interference that where there is conduct within the country find such conduct causes an appreciable adverse effect with the market of that country, then the commission positively has jurisdiction to decide for such cases.

  • Section 32 is based on what is commonly known as the effects of the train, which power regulator to extend jurisdiction on the principle of territoriality the view taken is that domestic competition law captured the check even if guilt enterprise is not located in the country provided anti-competitive act have an effect in the country.

Case law: USA versus aluminium company of America

  • This case is also known as the Alcoa case.
  • Us Court of appeal for the second circuits held that any state may impose liabilities, even a person not with its allegiance, for conduct outside is a border that has consequences within its borders.
  • IV held a Canadian Corporation in violation of the chairman act for agreeing with European aluminum producers of the Bolt to allocate the wall market and not supplied to the American market.
  • Section 32 enquiry into any agreement of abuse of dominant position of such agreement is likely to have in an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the relevant market in India.

READ ALSO: ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS: COMPETITION ACT 2002




Penalties under competition law

Competitive Commission of India which was established under the name the competition act, 2002. Commission bill gives penalties under various following circumstances, some of them are:

  1. Penalty for failure to comply with the directions of commission and director general.
  2. Penalty for making false statements or omission to furnish the material information.
  3. Penalty for non-furnishing of information on combinations.
  4. Penalty for offences in relation to furnishing the information.

1.Penalty for failure to comply with the directions of Commissioner and director general:

     In case, if a person or entity fails to comply with the directions given by the commission or the directions given by the director general while exercising the powers comma in such a person will be punishable I am shall have to fulfill a fine sum of 1 lakh. However the sum of penalty could not exceed 1 crore rupees.

2. Penalty for making false statement or omission to furnish the material information:

     In this case a person is liable to pay a penalty of not less than 50 lacs and it may exceed one crore Rupees as may be determined by the commission.

3. Penalty for non furnishing of information on combination:

     In such cases penalty which may extend to 1% of the total turnover of the acid of such a combination.

4. Penalty for offences in relation to furnishing the information:

      In such cases the commission may impose a penalty on a person be punishable with the monetary fine which may extend up to 1 crore rupees.

CONCLUSION

Are just like sections 3 4 and 6 of the company to act which are the lifeline of the statute, the interim orders extraterritoriality, and penalties are also important for the statutes which place and significant role in the elimination of monopolistic trade in the market. It can also help foreign hassle-free markets, which indirectly leads to the development of the Indian economy.




Leave a Reply

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