END TERM EXAMINATION, NOVEMBER 2016
B.A.LL.B. (HONS.)
SEMESTER-IX
Competition Law (Opt.-II)
Max. Marks: 60 Time Allowed: 3:00 Hrs.
Note: Answer five questions including Question No. 1 which is compulsory. The number of marks
carried by each question is indicated at the end of the question.
1. Answer the following (each answer should be in approximately 100 words): (Marks 2×10=20)
a. In the widget industry there are eight competitors. Two of them each has a market share in the
region of 20 per cent, and six of them each has a market share in the region of 10 per cent.
Calculate the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and identify the market in terms of
concentration.
b. Counterfactual is a concept in psychology but it is also very important for Competition
Law. Explain.
c. Differentiate between Agreement and Concerted Practice for the purpose of Competition
Law.
d. What do you mean by 'Control' under the Competition Act, 2002?
e. Discuss the qualification to become the chairperson and member of the Competition
Commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002.
f. Discuss Reference by Commission under section 21A of the Competition Act, 2002.
g. What do you understand by Statutory Authority under the Competition Act, 2002? Can
Director-General be considered as a Statutory Authority for the purpose of competition
matters? Mention the relevant case as discussed in the classroom.
h. A Company named Arena Corp. indulged into the combination but fails to give notice to
the commission under sub-section of section 6 of the Competition Act 2002. Can any
penalty be imposed on Arena Corp.? If yes, then what would be the quantum of penalty?
i. Discuss the provision of removal and suspension of Chairperson and Members of
Appellate Tribunal under the Competition Act, 2002.
j. Briefly discuss the findings of Lombard Club (2002) case.
2. What do you understand by exclusive agreements under the Competition Act, 2002? Explain
in detail that when these exclusive agreements are prohibited under the Competition Act,
2002? Also mention relevant case laws. (Marks 10)
3. The Central Government may, in formulating a policy on competition (including review of
laws related to competition) or any other matter, and a State Government may, in formulating
a policy on competition or on any other matter, as the case may be, make a reference to the
Commission for its opinion on possible effect of such policy on competition. Explain in the
light of relevant provision of the Competition Act, 2002. (Marks 10)
4. Explain Abuse of Dominant Position as provided under the Competition Act, 2002. Also
explain the factors which should be taken into consideration while determining the abuse.
(Marks 10)
5. It took over eight years for the merger control provisions contained in India's Competition Act, 2002 to be brought into force, on June 2011. Notwithstanding significant changes in the weeks and days prior to implementation, there remain considerable uncertainties as to which mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures affecting India are caught by the Act, and how they will be dealt with. For the purpose of evaluating the effect or possible effect of a transaction between enterprises on competition the ability of an enterprise to compete, it is necessary to ascertain the degree of autonomy it has. In the light of abovementioned paragraph discuss in detail the combination regulation as provided under the Competition Act, 2002. Also discuss about the orders of Commission on certain combinations under section 31 of the Competition Act, 2002. (Marks 10) 6. Mr. Raju, Associate Professor of International Law at Rajiv Gandhi School of IP Law, IIT Kharagpur, India described that "It is generally viewed that Intellectual property protection and competition law are odds with each other. Is there really any tussle between intellectual property protection and competition law? Intellectual property law creates and protects monopoly power and the other seeks to exclude it. IP exclusion provisions are included in the Indian Competition Act, 2002 in Section This is to provide enforcement to intellectual property rights. But protection of intellectual property rights are not per se violates any competition provisions. The objective of competition law is to prohibit anti-competitive practices and the objective of both the stream is wealth maximization in any economy. Intellectual property protection is necessary to foster innovation and choices of products in the market. It infuses efficiency in the market and increases consumer welfare. Cases against Microsoft India and abuse of dominant case against Ericsson filed by an Indian company named Micromax is only the beginning of the interface cases on intellectual property and competition law. There is no sufficient case laws and jurisprudence is available in India in guiding the Indian authorities and courts on the interface between intellectual property and competition." In the light of abovementioned paragraph discuss the interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law. (Marks 10) 7. Write a note on any two of the following: (Marks 5×2=10) a. Deemed approval of a combination as provided by the Competition Act, 2002. b. Combination thresholds provided under section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 after the notification of Government of India dated March 04, 2016. c. International Salt Co. v. US, 332 US 392 (1947).