The Private Competition Enforcement Review: India
Overview of recent private antitrust litigation activity
The year 2020 marked the onset of the second decade of enforcement of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Competition Act) in India. From April until June 2020 in India, just as in the rest of the world, several governmental actions were taken, including a national lockdown to contain the covid-19 pandemic. This necessitated a temporary hiatus in the functioning of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) – the nodal agency enforcing the Competition Act. The CCI was, however, quick to respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic to both market participants and its own physical functioning. It implemented several measures to deal with the dynamically changing economic landscape, as well as to cope with its functioning in the virtual era. These changes are detailed below.
- In April 2020, the CCI issued an advisory to businesses on the application and impact of the Competition Act on concerted practices among competitors during the covid-19 pandemic (the Advisory). In the Advisory, the CCI acknowledged that change in the market conditions caused by covid-19 may require coordination between businesses to ensure availability of essential commodities, medicines, etc. Coordination may be achieved through sharing of stock level data, use of distribution networks, research and development, production, etc. The CCI advised that conduct coordinated to increase efficiencies was to be favourably assessed where it was necessary and proportionate to address concerns during the pandemic. However, the CCI was of the view that the Competition Act in its present form has inbuilt safeguards to protect certain concerted actions from sanctions and accordingly no specific exemptions are required in relation to the pandemic.2
- The CCI started conducting virtual hearings through video conferencing and adopted a standard operating procedure to facilitate the process.
- All physical filings were stopped and instead e-filing was introduced for old and new behavioural cases and for combination notifications.
- Pre-filing consultations for combinations were conducted through video conferencing.
Similarly, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which is the appellate tribunal dealing with competition law matters, adopted virtual hearings to prevent a backlog of cases in appeal. The Competition Act prescribes a 60-day limitation period for filing appeals from certain CCI orders.3 However, given that the national lockdown limited the movement of persons to within cities and prevented movement across city borders, this limitation period was relaxed temporarily by direction of the Supreme Court of India (the Supreme Court). This ensured that no appeal was barred on technical grounds of being filed after expiry of the limitation period.
The year 2020 started with the release of the Draft Competition Amendment Bill 20204 for public comments by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (the Draft Bill 2020). The Draft Bill 2020, if passed by the two houses of the Indian Parliament, will be the first amendment to the current version of the Competition Act since it came into force in 2009.5
The Draft Bill 2020 proposes several changes to the substantive law, as well as to the procedural law. It also suggests changes to the structure and functioning of the CCI and the powers of the Office of the Director General (DG) – the investigative arm of the CCI.
To keep up with the surge in economic activity in the digital markets, the CCI in 2019 conducted a detailed market study into the e-commerce sector. During the market study, the CCI gathered insights from various stakeholders, such as retailers, manufacturers, online marketplace platforms, service providers and payment systems. The objective was to better understand the functioning of e-commerce in India and its implications for markets and competition. The final report, with key observations, was released this year.6 While the e-commerce market study was not undertaken with a pre-identified target business practice or market participant, it was instrumental in the CCI initiating investigations into alleged anticompetitive practices by several entities operating in the e-commerce sector.
Given the wide industry engagement and capacity building resulting from the e-commerce market study, the CCI has announced that it is currently undertaking market studies in the pharmaceutical and telecom sectors.
The CCI recently amended the combination notification forms to remove the requirement to disclose details of non-compete clauses in business agreements.7 This is a welcome move by the CCI as it reduces the disclosure requirements for parties and may lead to expedited clearance of transactions. However, it increases the risk of post-clearance antitrust actions by the CCI given that the parties are now burdened with self-assessing the impact on competition of covenants of this kind.
The year 2020 came to a close with the CCI conducting dawn raids (surprise search and seizure investigations) on several companies in the cement manufacturing sector, along with their trade association. The CCI is no stranger to this sector and has conducted several investigations, including the landmark cartel case8 in which the CCI imposed a staggering penalty of US$1.6 billion on 11 cement companies.
In addition to the above developments, the Supreme Court, the high courts, the NCLAT and the CCI have made significant judicial pronouncements in the past year that have enriched competition jurisprudence in India.
The Supreme Court, in its order in Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India & Ors,9 dismissed allegations of cartelisation against taxi aggregators Ola and Uber and settled the issue of locus standi to file an information memorandum (hereinafter an information), before the CCI (the Uber judgment). Over the past year, divergent views had emerged regarding this issue from the CCI and the NCLAT. The CCI was of the view that, in its role as an overarching market regulator, it performs an inquisitorial function and therefore any person has the standing to file an information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act10 – and not only a person who has suffered legal injury on account of an anticompetitive action, as had been determined by the NCLAT.11 The Supreme Court, relying upon its own judgment in Steel Authority of India v. Competition Commission of India & Anr (the SAIL judgment),12 held that under the Competition Act, a 'person' may file an information with the CCI. Further, the term 'person' would have to be interpreted broadly since proceedings under the Competition Act are in rem and it is the duty of the CCI to act in the public interest. Therefore, any person, including those who are not personally affected by anticompetitive conduct, may approach the CCI, as well as file an appeal against a CCI order with the NCLAT and the Supreme Court.
In a significant decision regarding the CCI's jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court (the Delhi HC) in line with its earlier decision13 upheld the jurisdiction of the CCI in a dispute involving stringent sublicence terms by a patent holder. The Delhi HC concluded that the focus of the Patents Act 1971 and of the Competition Act are different and there was no irreconcilable repugnancy between the two enactments. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the CCI to entertain complaints regarding abuse of dominance in respect of patent rights could not be excluded.14
The NCLAT, in Adani Gas Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India and Another,15 decided to reduce the penalty imposed by the CCI in an abuse of dominance case from 4 per cent to 1 per cent of the average turnover for three years. The NCLAT considered several mitigating circumstances in arriving at its decision, such as Adani's voluntary offer to revise the allegedly abusive clauses in its agreements, and increased competition in the market.
The CCI for the first time refrained from imposing penalties in two cases of hardcore cartel conduct. On the basis of a leniency application, the CCI found four industrial and automotive bearings manufacturers to have acted in concert and cartelised with respect to pricing. Despite significant evidence of collusion, the CCI only issued a cease-and-desist order and noted that the ends of justice would be met if the parties ceased the cartel behaviour and desisted from it in future.16
The CCI continued this approach in the case of In Re: Chief Materials Manager, South Eastern Railway v. Hindustan Composites Limited & Ors.17Upon reference from the Indian Railways, the CCI found 10 brake block manufacturers to have engaged in bid rigging. The companies quoted identical prices in tenders and offered identical reductions during negotiations. Smoking-gun evidence of collaboration among the companies was found in the form of WhatsApp communications, text messages, company personnel call records, statements recorded during the investigation and admissions by company representatives. Despite the evidence available, only a cease-and-desist order was passed. In deciding not to impose financial penalties, the CCI took an empathic view given the low annual turnover of some of the companies and the impact of the economic downturn caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
Following a prolonged investigation, the CCI fined Grasim Industries (Grasim), a leading man-made fibre manufacturer with a market share of more than 85 per cent, for abuse of dominance.18 Grasim was found to be charging different base rates without any objective criteria, implementing an opaque discount policy and preventing resale into the domestic market to maintain its market position. Grasim was fined US$41 million for its conduct.
Shortly after the release of its e-commerce market study, the CCI commenced an investigation into e-commerce majors Amazon and Flipkart in relation to anticompetitive vertical agreements in the market for online sales of mobile phones.19 The allegations include (1) exclusive launches of mobile phones; (2) preferred sellers on the marketplace; (3) deep discounting; and (4) preferential listing or promotion of private labels. Notably, the CCI dismissed allegations relating to abuse of dominance by the two companies and limited the scope of the investigation to vertical arrangements.
Soon thereafter, the NCLAT set aside the CCI's order not to investigate Flipkart for allegations of abuse of dominance and directed the CCI to initiate an investigation into the matter.20
The CCI continues its scrutiny into anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceuticals sector. This year, two pharmaceutical companies were found to be engaging in anticompetitive activities along with the chemists and druggists associations to control entry into the market of new stockists and drugs.21
The CCI is currently also investigating entities in the online travel booking sector and hotel franchisors for alleged abuse of dominance and anticompetitive vertical agreements respectively.22
The CCI has also commenced an investigation into Google for dominance and likely abuse resulting from its Unified Payments Interface (UPI) application, Google Pay.23 This is the third investigation commenced against Google in India.
In contrast, CCI decided not to investigate WhatsApp and Facebook when WhatsApp integrated its UPI payments application, WhatsApp Pay, since this feature had not been fully rolled out in India and accordingly an investigation at this time would have been premature.24
It is apparent from a summary of the past year's highlights in competition law in India that, despite the covid-19 pandemic, there have been quite a significant number of regulatory and judicial developments in the field.
General introduction to the legislative framework for private antitrust enforcement
The Competition Act, along with the regulations framed thereunder, provides the legislative framework for private antitrust actions in India. The jurisdiction of the CCI and the appellate jurisdiction of the NCLAT are exclusive with respect to matters under the Competition Act. The CCI is empowered to investigate anticompetitive agreements (both horizonal and vertical) and abuse by dominant firms under the Competition Act.25
An investigation can be initiated in one of three ways; (1) suo moto by the CCI; (2) upon reference from the government; and (3) by way of an information filed by a person (this includes third parties and public-spirited individuals, and as a result of leniency applications).
Upon receipt of an information, the CCI can form a prima facie view to either direct an investigation26 by the DG or dismiss the information27 and close the matter. The DG is vested with wide investigative powers that include summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him or her on oath, requiring discovery or production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents, and carrying out search and seizure operations, such as dawn raids.28
The DG under the Competition Act cannot initiate an investigation itself; however, it can request the CCI to widen the scope of an investigation; the Delhi HC made this observation in its judgment in Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. & Anr. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.29 This means that the DG's investigation is not limited as regards either the parties or the issues mentioned in the information.30 The law as propounded by these judicial precedents led to an amendment31 to the regulations, broadening the investigative powers of the DG.
While the investigation is ongoing, the CCI, upon fulfilment of certain preconditions, can pass interim orders32 restraining parties from engaging in the alleged anticompetitive practices. The Supreme Court in its landmark SAIL judgment laid down three factors to be considered by the CCI prior to passing an interim order: (1) whether there is a prima facie case of contravention of the Competition Act; (2) whether irreparable or serious mischief to the plaintiff will ensue; and (3) whether refusal of the ex parte injunction would cause greater injustice than its granting would. This power must be used by the CCI sparingly and only in the most compelling circumstances.33
The DG at the end of an inquiry submits a report to the CCI. Thereafter, the CCI can issue one of three orders: (1) an order under Section 26(6) finding no violation; (2) an order under Section 26(8) directing further investigation by the DG; or (3) an order under Section 27 finding a violation of the Competition Act. Under Section 27, the CCI can impose penalties, direct parties to seize and desist from their anticompetitive actions, and seek rectification of the anticompetitive conduct by the parties.
It has been clarified that the CCI is not compelled to accept the findings of the DG's investigation report. In fact, the NCLAT, in its judgment in Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors,34 set aside the CCI's order on the grounds that the CCI had relied upon the DG's report alone and had failed to conduct an independent inquiry.
To encourage cartel detection through whistle-blowers, the CCI has the power to reduce penalties (including offering a complete waiver) in lieu of 'full, true and vital disclosures' made regarding the existence of a catel.35 While several leniency applications have been filed with the CCI, thus far final orders have been passed in only five cases.
The enforcement provisions of the Competition Act were enacted in May 2009 and they only apply prospectively. However, the question arose about the application of the Competition Act in the case of an anticompetitive agreement entered into pre-2009 that continues to exist subsequent to the implementation of the enforcement provisions. To address this issue, the Bombay High Court36 laid down the test of 'continuing effect of past conduct', which under limited circumstances allows the CCI to look into anticompetitive agreements entered into pre-2009 if they continue and subsist after May 2009. This test was also applied more recently by the Supreme Court.37
While the Competition Act does not expressly mention whether the CCI has the power to recall or review its own orders, the Delhi HC in a series of judgments38 has clarified that this is an inherent power of the CCI.
The Competition Act does not prescribe any limitation period for actions by the CCI and so far no information has been disallowed on account of a delay in filing. However, an appeal arising from an order of the CCI ought to be filed within 60 days of receipt of the CCI order by an aggrieved person.39 Similarly, an appeal against an order of the NCLAT can be filed with the Supreme Court within 60 days of communication of the order.40
In addition to challenging a CCI order in an appeal, parties may also file applications with the NCLAT for compensation.41 Compensation applications can also be for loss or damage resulting from a contravention of CCI or NCLAT orders. The NCLAT has yet to adjudicate upon any compensation application.42
The Competition Act empowers the CCI to investigate all activities that have an adverse effect on competition within India.43 This includes the power to investigate conduct by enterprises incorporated outside India or agreements entered into outside the country. This extraterritorial operation of the Competition Act is protected under the Constitution of India.44
The extraterritorial jurisdiction of the CCI comes into operation in cases where the CCI is required to implead foreign parent companies as parties or call for deposition persons in charge of a foreign parent enterprise in investigations initiated against its Indian subsidiaries. This issue was first raised in an abuse of dominance investigation into the conduct of Google India and its parent company, Google Inc. Without any specific observation in this regard, the CCI imposed a penalty based on the sales of Google Inc's Indian operations.45 Recently, the CCI exercised its extraterritorial reach in an inquiry that was initiated after leniency applications were filed by automobile component manufacturers based in Japan, along with their Indian subsidiaries. The leniency applications followed investigations by the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) into anticompetitive agreements between the Japanese parent companies. Since investigations had already been initiated by the JFTC, the CCI limited its investigation to cover the period up until the date on which the JFTC carried out on-site inspections at the offices of the Japanese entities.46
The scope of CCI's extraterritorial jurisdiction is restricted to conduct that has an impact on competition within India, therefore export cartels originating in India are excluded from its jurisdiction.47 When, in a case before the CCI, it was found that the alleged anticompetitive agreement did not have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India because the entire quantity of the goods in question was being exported, the CCI stopped its investigation for want of jurisdiction.48
A large number of anticompetitive agreements involve cross-jurisdictional parties and effects. With the approval of the central government, the CCI can enter into arrangements with competition regulators from foreign jurisdictions to facilitate cross-jurisdictional investigations.49 In line with this provision, the CCI currently has memoranda of understanding and works in close cooperation with the antitrust authorities of the other BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa), Canada, the European Union, the United States and Australia. This allows the CCI to work closely with these experienced regulators and engage in knowledge-sharing exercises with them.
As discussed above, the question of locus standi for approaching the CCI with an information has been brought up multiple times in the past year. The Competition Act allows any person to file an information reporting a violation.50
Recently, in the Uber judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that proceedings under the Competition Act are in rem given that anticompetitive practices affect not only a particular enterprise, but also the functioning of the markets in India. Further, it noted that because the 'CCI performs inquisitorial, as opposed to adjudicatory functions, the doors of approaching the CCI and the appellate authority, i.e., the NCLAT, must be kept wide open in public interest, so as to subserve the high public purpose of the Act'. Accordingly, the right to file an information cannot be restricted.
The process of discovery
As described above, the CCI alone has jurisdiction over matters arising under the Competition Act and civil courts in India are specifically precluded from adjudicating matters under the Competition Act. Proceedings under the Competition Act are inquisitorial and require the CCI (through the office of the DG) to conduct an inquiry into the alleged violations. To facilitate this process, the CCI and the DG are vested with powers akin to the those of the civil courts under the Civil Procedure Code.51 These powers include requiring the discovery and production of any and all relevant information or documents, issuing summonses to parties and conducting examinations of parties, including witnesses or third parties (i.e., persons who are not party to the case) on oath, receiving evidence on oath and requisitioning any public records subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (the Evidence Act).52
Further, the CCI can regulate its own procedure for discharging its functions under the Competition Act.53 However, in exercising its powers, the CCI must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The procedure for an investigation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act are codified in the CCI (General) Regulations 2009 (the General Regulations). The General Regulations empower the DG to inspect documents,54 take evidence,55 issue summonses56 and examine witnesses or documents57 in the course of an inquiry.
The evidence collected by the DG during an inquiry and relied upon for the purposes of its investigation report must be placed before the CCI and thereafter made available to all the parties (i.e., the informant and the parties under investigation). The parties can, however, only gain access to such information that has not been granted confidential status under Regulation 35 of the General Regulations.
The expansive investigative powers of the DG include the power to conduct surprise search and seizure exercises, commonly known as 'dawn raids'.58 Dawn raids are typically conducted to collect evidence in cartel cases; however, interestingly, the CCI's first dawn raid was in a case of alleged abuse of dominance. So far, the CCI has conducted seven dawn raids, four of which have been in the past two years. The most recent dawn raid was conducted upon a number of cement manufacturers along with the offices of the Cement Manufacturers Association for price cartelisation in December 2020.
Use of experts
The Competition Act is sector agnostic and investigation into certain sectors or practices may require assistance from experts in those fields. In this respect, during an inquiry, the CCI can call upon experts from the fields of economics, commerce, accountancy, international trade or any other discipline as necessary.59 The CCI regularly engages with institutions (such as universities) and private agencies to conduct market studies and surveys and to assist with econometric assessment of the markets for both behavioural cases and combinations.60
Separately, third-party experts also assist the CCI with reviewing and providing input on legislation and governmental policies from an antitrust perspective.
Consumer associations, trade associations, a body of individuals, a cooperative society, non-governmental associations or trusts can file an information alleging violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act as class actions.61 Moreover, class actions are also permitted for filing compensation applications before the NCLAT.62 This prevents multiplicities of cases in which parties with the same interest are seeking a similar relief.
The penalty powers of the CCI are unparalleled among regulators in India. Upon finding a violation of Section 3 or Section 4, the CCI can impose a penalty of up to 10 per cent of a company's average turnover for the preceding three financial years. In the case of cartels, the CCI is empowered to impose a penalty of up to 10 per cent of the average turnover or three times the profits earned during the period of cartelisation by the cartel participants.63 In addition to the penalties imposed on enterprises, trade associations or other entities, persons in charge of such entities can also be penalised for their role in facilitating anticompetitive activity.64
As detailed above, the CCI can also offer reductions in penalties or a complete penalty waiver under the leniency scheme to cartel participants who assist the CCI's investigation by offering full and vital disclosures.65
Other penalties under the Competition Act can be imposed for non-compliance with CCI orders or directions of the DG.66
Additionally, the NCLAT is empowered to award damages for loss or injury resulting from a contravention of the Competition Act. Damages can be claimed (1) from findings of violation of the Competition Act by the CCI or NCLAT,67 (2) for recovery of damage suffered by the plaintiff,68 and (3) for damage suffered because of non-compliance with CCI orders.69
The Competition Act does not contain a specific provision for pass-on defences.
However, compensation applications70 decided by the NCLAT require determinations as to eligibility of the applicant and to the quantum of compensation due.71 This allows the respondent to adopt a pass-on defence contending the applicant's eligibility to seek compensation.
The Competition Act does not prescribe any limitation on initiating a private action if there has already been a prior enforcement action with respect to the same matter. However, Section 61 of the Act prohibits civil courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter that either the CCI or the NCLAT is empowered to try under the various sections of the Act.
The Competition Act does not address the concept of privileged communications between an attorney and a client. The issue of privileged communication has not come before the CCI in an investigation, dawn raid or leniency application, therefore the position of the CCI in this regard remains unclear.
The Evidence Act, however, provides protection to professional communications between a client and the client's attorney.72 Section 127 of the Evidence Act extends this protection to communications with external counsel, interpreters, clerks and employees of the attorney. Further, attorneys are prevented from disclosing details of any professional communication with their clients or from disclosing the contents of any documents entrusted to the attorney by the client under this privilege. An attorney cannot be compelled to disclose the details of any confidential communication with a client even to a court of law.73
However, some of the exceptions to this privilege are situations where (1) the client has committed a crime or a fraud during the period of engagement of the attorney,74 or (2) the attorney is called upon as a witness by the client.75
The Competition Act does not contain any provision for parties to enter into any form of settlement; however, the Competition Bill 2020 has made a proposal in this regard.
At present, once an information has been filed with the CCI, there is no provision for withdrawing it, therefore, a settlement between the parties would not preclude the CCI from continuing an investigation into violations of the Competition Act. However, there is nothing in the Competition Act to prevent private parties from settling a dispute and this has been recognised by the Delhi HC.76
The issues governed by the Competition Act are not in personum but in rem. Based upon the Indian jurisprudence on which disputes are arbitrable, in rem proceedings have generally been rendered non-arbitrable.77 Moreover, the Competition Act does not permit arbitration or alternate methods of dispute resolution for determination of violations of Section 3 and 4.
Moreover, the Delhi HC has previously held that the existence of an arbitration agreement is not relevant for the purposes of competition law proceedings under the Competition Act.78
Indemnification and contribution
The Competition Act does not contain provision for indemnification or contribution from third parties, co-defendants and cross-defendants.
Future developments and outlook
The enactment of the Competition Bill 2020 is certainly the most awaited legal development in India. In line with legislation in mature competition jurisdictions, the Competition Bill 2020 proposes to introduce certain new concepts into the Competition Act, such as:
- settlement and commit mechanisms;
- hub and spoke cartels to be specifically included within the definition of a cartel;
- the CCI to have the power to expand the criteria for assessing competition in markets based on evolving markets (including digital markets); and
- the introduction of a governing board, changing the administrative structure of the CCI.
Further, the outcome of the various investigations ongoing in the digital markets remains to be seen. These initial investigations will lay the foundation for the CCI's jurisprudence on digital markets.79
Another, highly desirable regulatory advance is the CCI's implementation of penalty guidelines. While the Supreme Court's order in Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr80 currently guides the CCI's sanctioning, a set of comprehensive guidelines would ensure consistency and predictability in this regard.
The past year has been exceptional in all respects and the CCI has recognised this and factored it into its orders. However, the CCI is indisputably reverting to being a proactive regulator and this is demonstrated by the numerous market studies it has initiated, and by its cement sector dawn raids. Moreover, the NCLAT, the high courts and the Supreme Court continue to keep the CCI on track and ensure that it fulfils its mandate unimpeded. The coming years will certainly be the most challenging yet stimulating period for competition jurisprudence in India.
1 Charanya Lakshmikumaran is a partner and Neelambera Sandeepan is a joint partner at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan.
2 The Advisory is available at: https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/whats_newdocument/Advisory.pdf.
3 Section 53B of the Competition Act.
4 The Draft Bill 2020 is available at: https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/file_folder/folder_5/Draft_Competition_Amendment_Bill_2020.pdf.
5 The original Competition Act 2002 was amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act 2007 and subsequently by the Competition (Amendment) Act 2009.
6 The E-commerce Market Study : Key Findings & Observations is available at: https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/whats_newdocument/Market-study-on-e-Commerce-in-India.pdf.
8 Builders Association of India v. Cement Manufacturers' Association & Ors.
9 Civil Appeal No. 3100 of 2020.
10 XYZ v. Alphabet Inc. & Ors., Case No. 07 of 2020.
11 Samir Agarwal v. Competition Commission of India; Competition Appeal (AT) No. 11 of 2019.
12 Civil Appeal No. 7779 of 2010.
13 Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson v. Competition Commission of India & Another, W.P.(C) 464/2014.
14 W.P. (C) 1776/2016.
15 TA (AT) (Competition) No. 33/2017.
16 In Re: Cartelisation in Industrial and Automotive Bearings, Case No. 05 of 2017.
17 Reference Case No. 03 of 2016.
18 XYZ v. Association of Manmade Fiber Industry of India & Ors., Case No. 62 of 2016.
19 Case No. 40 of 2019.
20 All India Online Vendors Association v. Competition Commission of India, Competition Appeal (AT) No. 16 of 2019.
21 In re: Shri Suprabhat Roy, Proprietor, M/s Suman Distributors, Murshidabad v. Shri Saiful Islam Biswas, District Secretary of Murshidabad District Committee of Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association & Ors., Case No. 36 of 2015.
22 Rubtub Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Case No. 01 of 2020.
23 Case No. 07 of 2020.
24 Harshit Chawla v. Whatsapp Inc. & Others, Case No. 15 of 2020.
25 Section 19(1) read with Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.
26 Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.
27 Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.
28 Section 41 of the Competition Act.
29 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8032.
30 Competition Commission of India v. Grasim Industries, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10017.
32 Section 33 of the Competition Act.
33 Steel Authority of India v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.,
34 Competition Appeal (AT) No. 06 of 2017.
35 Section 46 of the Competition Act.
36 Kingfisher Airlines v. Competition Commission of India, 2010 SCC OnLineBom 2186.
37 Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India (2017) 8 SCC 47.
38 Google Inc. & Ors. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8992; Cadila Healthcare Ltd. & Anr. v. Competition Commission of India & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11229.
39 Section 53B of the Competition Act.
40 Section 53T of the Competition Act.
41 Section 53N of the Competition Act.
42 Currently, seven compensation applications are pending before the NCLAT.
43 Section 31 of the Competition Act.
44 Article 245(2) of the Constitution of India protects the legality of legislation that has an extraterritorial operation.
45 Matrimony.com v. Google LLC & Ors., Case No. 07 and 30/2012, Shri Vishal Gupta v. Google LLC & Ors., Case No. 06/2014 and M/s Albion InfoTel Ltd. v. M/s Google Inc. & Ors., Case No. 46/2014, order dated 31 January 2018.
46 In re: Cartelisation in the supply of Electric Power Steering Systems (EPS Systems), Suo Motu Case No. 07(01) of 2014, order dated 09 September 2019.
47 Section 3(5)(ii) of the Competition Act.
48 Nirmal Kumar Manhsani v. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd & Ors, case No. 76/2012, order dated 28 June 2016 (order is currently under challenge in W.P.(C) 3922/2017 before the Delhi HC).
49 Section 18 of the Competition Act.
50 Section 19(1) of the Competition Act.
51 Section 36(2) of the Competition Act.
52 Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
53 Section 36(1) of the Competition Act.
54 Regulations 37 and 50 of the General Regulations.
55 Regulation 41 of the General Regulations.
56 Regulation 44 of the General Regulations.
57 Regulation 45 of the General Regulations.
58 Section 41(1) of the Competition Act.
59 Section 36(3) of the Competition Act.
60 The procedure for engagement of experts is codified under the CCI (Procedure for Engagement of Experts and Professionals) Regulations, 2009.
61 Section 19(1) of the Competition Act.
62 Section 53N(4) of the Competition Act.
63 Section 27 of the Competition Act.
64 Section 48 of the Competition Act.
65 Section 46 of the Competition Act.
66 Sections 42 and 43 of the Competition Act.
67 Section 53N of the Competition Act.
68 Section 42A of the Competition Act.
69 Section 53Q(2) of the Competition Act.
70 Under Section 42A of the Competition Act.
71 Explanation (b) to Section 53N of the Competition Act.
72 Section 126 of the Evidence Act.
73 Section 129 of the Evidence Act.
74 Exception to Section 126 of the Evidence Act.
75 Section 128 of the Evidence Act.
76 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India & Anr, Delhi HC, W.P.(C) 5604/2015, order dated 14 December 2015; currently under appeal before a division bench of the Delhi HC in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 550 of 2016.
77 Vidya Drolia & Others v. Durga Trading Corporation, 2019 SCCOnLine SC 358.
78 Union of India v. CCI & Ors., 012 CompLR 187 (Delhi).
79 Investigations ongoing into (1) anticompetitive agreements by Flipkart, Amazon, Oravel Stays, Ola, Uber, etc., and (2) abuse of dominance by Google, Makemytrip, Flipkart, etc.
80 (2017) 8 SCC 47.