Section 3(5) of the Competition Act provides that nothing in Section 3 (Prohibition of Anti-Competitive Agreements) limits a person`s right to prevent infringements or the imposition of appropriate conditions that may be necessary to protect his or her intellectual property rights, namely copyright, trademark, patent, design and geographical indications. Article 19(1) of the Act provides that the ICC may investigate any alleged infringement of Article 3(1) of the Act, alone or after receiving information from a person, consumer or his association or trade association, against payment of the fees and in the prescribed manner. The ICC can also act when the central government, a land government or a legal authority notifies it. The ICC conducts the investigation only in cases of this and then orders the Director General to open an investigation into the case. In cases where CCI finds, as a result of an investigation, that the agreement is anti-competitive and that it has an AAEC, it may take all or part of the injunctions it may issue under section 33 of the Act: in addition, it is important to note that Section 2(b) of the Act provides that “the Agreement” covers any agreement or act – (i) whether or not, such an agreement, understanding or act is formal or written; or (ii) whether or not such agreement, understanding or act is to be enforceable through legal process. Thus, an oral order can also be anti-competitive. Agreements between parties that have not been formalized or that have been executed or registered in writing may also be considered anti-competitive if it is established that they have AAEC in India. Agreements resulting from a commercial relationship can be considered as children of trade or commerce. A contractual agreement can be defined as an acceptance of an offer. Agreements that generally have adverse effects, distort or restrict competition are called anti-competitive agreements.
Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 defines anti-competitive agreements as all agreements relating to the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition and control of goods or the provision of services that appreciably affect competition in India. Harm to competition does not relate to a specific list of agreements, but to certain economic consequences that may be generated by very different types of agreements on different dates and circumstances. It generally applies to any act prejudicial to public interests by excessively restricting competition or excessively hindering the smooth running of trade. Facts – The informant in this case had claimed that the original automotive spare parts manufactured by some of the operations were not freely available on the open market and that most equipment manufacturers (oeMs) and authorized distributors had clauses in their agreements obliging authorized dealers to source spare parts only from OEMs and their authorized suppliers. In Shri Shamsher Kataria v Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Ors3, the concept of vertical agreements, including exclusive supply agreements, exclusive distribution agreements and refusal of transactions, was examined by the Commission. Under the law, horizontal agreements are classified in a special category and are subject to the unfavourable presumption of being anti-competitive. . . .