Ans-2- Since achieving Independence in 1947,India, for the almost 50 years from that point,

embraced and followed strategies containing what are known as Command and Control
regulations, rules, guidelines and chief orders. The Competition Law of India, to be specific,
the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act,) was one such. It was
in 1991 that far reaching monetary changes were attempted and thus the walk from Command
and Control the country’s economy to an economy dependent more upon unregulated
economy standards started its step. As is valid for some nations, financial advancement has
flourished in India and the requirement for a successful contest system has likewise been
perceived. With regards to the new monetary strategy worldview, India has decided to order
another competition regulation called the Competition Act, 2002. The MRTP Act has
transformed into the new regulation, Competition Act, 2002. The new regulation is intended
to annul the surviving MRTP Act. Competition Law for India was triggered by Articles 38
and 39 of the Constitution of India. These Articles are a part of the Directive Principles of
State Policy.

There are certain salient features of the Competition Act which was brought after the MRTP
Act.

 The Board for Industrial Finance and Restructuring (BIFR) formed under the
arrangements of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ought to be
annulled.
 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the associated resolutions should be corrected
to accommodate a simple exit to the non-suitable, badly oversaw and wasteful units
subject to their lawful commitments in regard of their liabilities.
 The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 may presently not be vital
with the exception of area (aversion of metropolitan driven area), for natural security
and for landmarks and public legacy insurance contemplations, etc.

Flaws in the MRTP Act-

 The MRTP Act 1969 has a chance to be repealed and the MRTP Commission twisted
up because the consequences for unfair trade practices exchange are not mentioned in
the Indian Competition Act as they are covered by the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Important Components of the Competition Act-

 Anti-Competition Agreements
Firms go into arrangements, which might have the capability of confining rivalry. An
output of the opposition regulations globally will show that they make a qualification
among level and vertical arrangements between firms. The previous, in particular the
level arrangements are those among contenders and the last option, specifically the
upward arrangements are those connecting with a genuine or possible relationship of
buying or offering to one another. An especially noxious sort of level arrangements is
the cartel. Vertical arrangements are noxious, on the off chance that they are between
firms in a place of predominance. Most contest regulations view vertical arrangements
by and large more mercifully than level arrangements, as, at first sight, flat
arrangements are bound to lessen rivalry than arrangements between firms in a buyer
– seller relationship.
 Abuse of Dominance
Dominant Position has been fittingly characterized in the Act as far as the place of
solidarity, delighted in by an endeavour, in the pertinent market, in India, which
empowers it to work autonomously of cutthroat powers winning in the applicable
market or influence its rivals or shoppers or the significant market, in support of its.
Section 4 of the Competition Act says, no undertaking will manhandle its dominant
position. Dominant position is the place of solidarity delighted in by an endeavour in
the applicable market which empowers it to work autonomously of cutthroat powers
winning on the lookout or influences its rivals or customers or the significant market
in support of its. Prevailing position is mishandled when an endeavour forces out of
line or oppressive circumstances in buy or offer of labour and products or in the cost
in buy or offer of labour and products. Once more, the way of thinking of the
Competition Act is reflected in this arrangement, where it is explained that a
circumstance of imposing business model in essence isn't against public strategy
however, rather utilization of the syndication status with the end goal that it works to
the hindrance of potential and genuine contenders.
 Competition Advocacy
The Regulatory Authority under the Act, specifically, Competition Commission of
India (CCI), as far as the backing arrangements in the Act, is empowered to partake in
the detailing of the country's financial approaches and to take part in the evaluating of
regulations connected with rivalry at the occurrence of the Central Government. The
 Central Government can make a reference to the CCI for its viewpoint on the
conceivable impact of a strategy under definition or of a current regulation connected
with rivalry. The Commission will hence be accepting the job of rivalry advocate,
acting supportive of effectively to achieve Government approaches that lower
obstructions to passage, that advance liberation and exchange progression and that
advance contest the commercial market places. In accordance with the High Level
Committee's proposal, the Act broadens the command of the Competition
Commission of India past just implementing the law (High Level Committee, 2000).
Contest promotion makes a culture of rivalry. There are numerous conceivable
important jobs for contest promotion, contingent upon a nation's legitimate and
monetary conditions.
 The Act on Combinations Regulation
The Competition Act likewise is intended to control the activity and exercises of
combination, a term, which ponders acquisitions, consolidations or combinations.
Subsequently, the activity of the Competition Act isn't kept to exchanges stringently
to the limits of India yet additionally such exchanges including substances existing as
well as laid out abroad. Herein again lays the key to understanding the Competition
Act. The intent of the legislation is not to prevent the existence of a monopoly across
the board. The Act has made the pre-notifications of blends deliberate for the
gatherings concerned. In any case, on the off chance that the gatherings to the mix
decide not to tell the CCI, as it isn't compulsory to tell, they show the gamble of a
post-mix activity to the CCI, assuming it is found thusly, that the mix affects rivalry.
There is a rider that the CCI will not start an investigation into a blend after the expiry
of one year from the date on which the mix makes taken difference.

Conclusion

The Competition Act can be of extraordinary advantage to all undertakings regardless of

their size, area of activity, locale included, nature of items provided or benefits delivered
and the equivalent is fundamental for organizations, its chiefs and the delegate key
corporate leaders to keep away from outlandish difficulties of financial fines, common
detainment, alongside loss of hard-procured standing when the Competition Authorities,
the media and others uncover the wrongdoings in broad daylight.
Ans-1 VoMo Ltd. and Shahic Ltd. are manufacturers of gas cylinders of a certain
specification required by two oil companies, IOCL and BPCL, which are public sector
companies. It is also noted that the gas cylinders are only purchased by IOCL and BPCL
from VoMo Ltd. and Shahnic Ltd. It is contended by IOCL that VoMo Ltd. and Shahic Ltd.,
suppliers of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders to IOCL and BPCL, have indulged in
cartilisation, thereby influencing and rigging the prices. IOCL is a leading market player in
LPG as its market share is 48%.

(a) Yes, the Competition Commission, under the circumstances, have a right to Suo moto
take action against the two manufacturers, VoMo Ltd. and Shahic Ltd. The Competition Act
controls anti-competitive practices in India. The CCI is the legal expert responsible for rivalry
regulation enforcement. The CCI is supported by its analytical arm, the Office of the Director
General (DG), in accomplishing the goals of the Competition Act, including forestalling
works on causing an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC), advancing and
supporting rivalry in business sectors, safeguarding the interests of buyers and guaranteeing
opportunity of exchange.
All the more explicitly, section 3 of the Competition Act disallows anticompetitive
arrangements that reason or are probably going to cause an AAEC in India. Anticompetitive
arrangements incorporate arrangements between or among competitors in a market (ie, flat
arrangements, including cartels) and arrangements between undertakings or people at various
stages or levels of the creation chain (i.e., vertical arrangements).

As a first step showing the existence of a cartel, the CCI must show that competitors had
entered into an agreement to fix prices, limit or control supply, production, markets, technical
development, investment or provision of services, share or allocate markets or rig bids. So,
here as per the given data the allegation has been made by the IOCL that the VoMo Ltd. and
Shahic Ltd., suppliers of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders to IOCL and BPCL, have
indulged in cartelisation, thereby influencing and rigging the prices. So, the CCI and the DG
also have the authority to collect evidence, including the power to search and seize
documents, and to collect evidence through dawn raids, to establish the existence of a cartel.

(b) In India Cartelisation is a Civil Offence prohibited under the Competition Act 2002.As an
initial phase in laying out the presence of a cartel, the CCI should show that contenders had
gone into a consent to fix costs, breaking point or control supply, creation, markets,
specialized improvement, venture or arrangement of administrations, share or dispense
markets or rig bids. The Competition Act defines ‘agreement’ widely. The CCI has also
clarified (in its decisional practice) that the existence of an anti-competitive agreement can be
inferred from a number of ‘coincidences’ and ‘indicia’
Also Section 3(3) of the Act prohibits the anti-competitive agreements in India including
cartels between companies which directly or indirectly result in the bid rigging. Thus, the
CCI has the complete authority to enforce cartel prohibition in the country.

Ans-3- (c) Powers of Director General under Competition Law

The Director General leads the investigation wing of the Competition Commission of India.
Director General in India refers to the Director General appointed Sec 16 (1) of the
Competition Act and includes any Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Directors General
appointed under the section.

1. The Director General, is expected by the Commission, to assist the Commission in

investigating into any contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act
whenever required or investigate into contravention of any rules or regulations
thereunder.
2. The Director General has all the powers conferred upon the Commission under Sec 36
(2).
3. Where the CCI upon private complaint or suo motu consider that a prima facie case
exists it shall ask the DG to investigate into the matter.
4. In respect of investigations whether carried out suo motu or on a complaint filed by
the aggrieved party DG submits investigation report to the CCI within a specific time
period. CCI sends the DG Report to both the parties inviting their comments and
objections. After further hearing the CCI passes the appropriate orders.

The Director General can also investigate contraventions along with the directions from the
Commission. Any assistance from the commission can also be demanded by him. This right
is given under Section 41 of the competition Act. Any investigation which is done by the
Director General can be traced to Sec 240 and 240 A of the Companies act. These
investigations which are made by the director general can be held as an investigation done
under his authority.
In accordance with Section 16(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, the Director General may be
appointed to assist the Commission in conducting inquiries into potential violations of this
Act's provisions as well as to carry out any other duties as specified by this Act.

The appointment of the Director General is governed by Section 16 of the Competition Act of
2002. This can be performed by the Central Government issuing a notification for the
appointment of a Director General to support the Commission's investigation of any potential
violations of the Competition Act of 2002's provisions.

The proportion of additional Additional, Joint, Deputy, and/or Assistant Director General
roles created in this way must always be filled in accordance with the Competition Act of
2002. Each Additional, Joint, Deputy, and Assistant Director General must perform the duties
and control of the Director General in order to exercise their authority and carry out their
duties.

The Central Government should, in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act,
2002, set the salary, allowances, and other terms & conditions of services for the Director
General as well as other officers reporting to him.

A person of integrity and exceptional talent who has experience in an investigation,

understanding of accounting, management, business, public administration, and international
commerce shall be appointed as the Director General and Additional, Joint, Deputy, and
Assistant Directors.

(a) Perfect Competitive Market

An ideal market is one that has countless enterprises that are taken part in comparable or
homogenized exercises. It might be said, this permits clients the choice to browse many
organizations; they are not expected to choose a specific organization over others.
Organizations can enter or leave this industry whenever on the grounds that there is sound
contest. The organizations associated with it control or choose the item's costs. The ventures
control the whole market, and each organization adds to the business overall in minuscule
sums. Customers and makers keep on being in an optimal equilibrium. The clients have
critical information about the market. The business cost of any item not entirely set in stone
by the business overall and no single player has anything to do with it. The organizations who
are framing a tiny piece of the market, will sell the units or the items according to the costs
fixed by the business overall.

The short term benefits incorporates where a typical firm, having a little piece of the business
makes any change to the items, it perpetually gains a higher benefit when contrasted with its
partners. In this manner the Average and Marginal expenses of the items will remain lower,
and each firm in a similar industry will attempt to stay aware of the new creation strategy
alongside a similar cost range and the cost stays same in the brief period.

However, in the long term advantages specifies that where it is presumed that this model of
the market is having the perfect knowledge about the industry and the firms are able to make
necessary improvements and productions to keep up with the healthy competition which is
put forward by other firms. Therefore, in the long-term, many new firms also will enter into
the industry with the view that they can gain profit out of the same which will also increase
the supply and in turn will help in keeping up with the consumer demands.

The main characteristic of a perfectly competitive market is that there are many competitive
firms who are selling similar products, having equal market share. The buyer or the
consumers also have full information about the market, and the market is open for every other
new firm who wants to get into this particular industry. This market can be classified as the
exact opposite of a monopolistic market.

One more key element of the ideal competitive market is the lack of control. The public
authority of any nation assumes an essential part in figuring out the guidelines for the market
which thus controls and determines the costs of any item. By these guidelines, the business
could likewise require huge ventures to make the business run smooth. Any command over
the business combined includes the expense and it ends up being pricey for the market to
carry the items with lesser expense. These sorts of control don't actually work in the
completely cutthroat market. As the organizations can enter or leave something very similar
anytime of time, the market is profoundly unregulated. This likewise makes the business to
save on the work and the capital resources. Criticism is one essential element of perfect
competition.
The first criticism which a perfect market faces is that there is absence of innovation. The
market share and number of players make the market stagnant and there is no competition
within the firms to come up with better products. The cost of the products and the profit
margins are also fixed by the demand and supply from the consumers, so it gets difficult for
the firms to charge any extra amount for their premium service. The profit margin gets really
low at some point of the time which doesn't give the firms to expand their production
capabilities which in turn hits at the business profit margin.