Anti-competitive agreements will continue to be classified into horizontal and vertical agreements. Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Ors- Important Case Law on Anti-Competitive Agreements Section 3 (1) of the Act provides for a general prohibition for the conclusion of agreements that may cause or cause a CEAA in India: the Section provides for a waiver of joint ventures entered into by the parties when they increase production efficiency, Supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or services. Article 3(1) of the Law cannot be relied on independently and must necessarily be used in conjunction with Article 3(3) as regards horizontal agreements or Section 3(4) as regards vertical agreements. It should be clarified, however, that Article 3(1) is not only a suggestive provision, but is essentially the “kind” of the law. It should also be invoked independently to serve the interests of consumers and also cover various other types of agreements that might not fall under the aegis of Article 3(3) or Article 3(4). Vertical agreements exist between companies at different stages of the production chain, such as an agreement between the manufacturer and a distributor. The presumption rule does not apply to vertical agreements. Whether the vertical agreement caused AAEC is determined by the rule of reason.
If the rule of reason is applied, the positive and negative effects of competition will be analysed. To determine whether an agreement is contrary to Section 3(4) in conjunction with Section 3(1) of the Act, the following five essential elements of Section 3(4) must be met: the ICC imposed a fine of approximately $50,000 on AIOCD. However, the remedies imposed by the ICC injunction are much more important. The ICC Order required AIOCD to stop anti-competitive practices and to inform drug manufacturers and AIOC members that the anti-competitive practices were no longer in effect. While cement has attracted international attention due to the amount of fines imposed, the most important case the ICC has presented to date is Santuka Associates v. All India Organization of Chemists and Drechists (AIOCD). Santuka Associates was the informant – that is, the company that filed a complaint with the ICC in May 2011. According to the complaint, the trade association of nearly 750,000 retailers and wholesalers across India participated in widespread anti-competitive activities. These allegations included limiting new entrants, levying royalties for producers in the associations` product information service, fixing prices and boycotting producers who failed to comply with these restrictions. . .