GNLU International Conference on Trade and Competition Law (GICTCL-2013)
“Encourage competition and not competitors.”
The inaugural session of the GNLU International
conference on trade and competition law started
with an address by the Director of the University,
Mr. Bimal Patel. He in his address highlighted the
significance of the conference. The Chief Guest
of Honour, Mr. Ratneshwar Prasad, Ex-Member,
Competition Commission of India, in his speech
highlighted. how competition commission of
India has been instrumental in curbing anti
competition practices in India and how it is
working towards a business environment where a
healthy competition prevails in the markets.
The first session was chaired by Mr. Prof.
Abhijit Das, Professor and Head, Centre for
WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign
Trade, New Delhi. It was co- chaired by Mr.
K.D. Raju who is Assistant Professor, Rajiv
Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law,
IIT Kharagpur. The theme of the session was
Evolving framework of international trade law
in the 21st century: WTO and Free trade
agreements. Mr. Das explained the basics of
free trade agreements and how it affects the
world trade. K.D. Raju started the discussion
with explaining how world trade has evolved
from the days of GATT.
He then went on to explain how WTO dispute settlement mechanism has made them more
powerful than the GATT system. Also, he pointed out that while the GATT was a mere agreement
between contracting parties WTO is a more enforceable international law system. There were four
papers presented by the students of various colleges like Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat,
Haryana; ILS Pune, Symbiosis Law College, pune; Institute of Law, Nirma University. The topics
discussed in the conference papers ranged from Free trade agreement between European Union and
India: a Suicidal Approach to access to medicines to the environmental concerns in the context of
free trade agreements.
The second session was on the topic
‘Horizontal and Vertical Agreements –
Menace to be curbed and Relationships to
be explored’. This session was chaired by
Dr. S Chakravarthy, Advisor/Consultant
on Competition Policy and Law and the
discussant was Ms. Simran Dhir, Senior
Associate, S&R Associates, New Delhi. In
his opening remarks Dr. Chakravarthy
discussed about MRTP and the new
Competition Act. He called that
competition preserves and promotes
competition
process,
promotes
innovation and efficiency. He also
discussed
horizontal
and
vertical
agreements and their effects.
In the closing remarks, he emphasised on the need of encouraging competition and not competitors.
Ms. Dhir further adding on to the discussion gave a brief about vertical and horizontal agreements.
It was a very productive discussion which touched upon various important aspects of cartels and its
future scope also.
The theme of the third session was Abuse of
Dominance. The session was chaired by Mr.
Manas Kumar Chaudhuri, Partner, Khaitan &
Co., New Delhi. And the Discussant was
Prof. Aditya Bhattacharjea, Professor, Delhi
School of Economics. Mr. Manas and Prof.
Aditya highlighted how in a monopolistic
market or oligopoly market the corporations
with large market share can abuse their
dominance. This abuse of dominance can be
of two types eliminating or exhaustive. It was
highlighted in the papers presented and by the
dignitaries how it is very difficult to catch
instances of abuse of dominance.
The fourth Session was chaired by Mr. Amitabh Kumar, Partner, J Sagar Associates, Delhi and the
discussant was Ms. Nisha Kaur Oberoi, Partner, Amarchand Mangaldas, Mumbai and Mr. P
Ramkumar, Senior Associate, Dhall Law Chamber, New Delhi. The theme of this session was
‘Combinations- Mergers and Joint Ventures’. Mr. Amitabh Kumar introduced this topic by briefly
discussing about Merger Filings which consist of two forms- Form I (self-assessment form) and
Form II (filled by CCI). Ms. Nisha Kaur Oberoi discussed the merger control mechanism in detail
while Mr. Ramkumar highlighted the recourse of challenges faced by practicioners in mergers and
joint ventures. She explained the three tests to determine whether the merger is notifiable to the
CCI or not- 1) Target exemption entity; 2) parties involved in merger control agreement (whether
owned and controlled in India) and lastly, 3) the Group test. This notification should be provided to
the CCI within 30 days of signing of the Share Purchase Agreement or the like (in case of
acquisition) and 30 days from signing of the final board approval (in case of merger).
The Form to be filled depends on the horizontal overlap test (eg. Coke and Pepsi) and the vertical
overlap test (eg. Car manufacturer and car dealer). The CCI can either accept, reject or modify this
Form. If the CCI does not respond to the notification within 30 days, the Companies can publish it
in the newspaper and ask for public views and comments, whether they agree to the merger. If the
CCI does not react to this as well, the combination is deemed approved. Ms. Nisha Kaur Oberoi
believed that intra-group filings is a very wrong practice in India, because such filings are not
required since the company already has control over it. Regarding Joint Venture, the common belief
was that, since it has not been specified in the Act, the CCI was nevertheless be notified as done in
the case of acquisitions. This session was definitely enriching as it discussed all procedural
requirements of the Act.
The fifth session was chaired by
Mr. G.R. Bhatia, Partner and Head
of Competition Law and Practice,
Luthra and Luthra Law Offices,
New Delhi. It was co- chaired by
Mr. M.M. Sharma, Partner and
Head of Competition Law and
Policy,
Vaish
Associates
Advocates, New Delhi.
The theme of the session was Competitive Implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Mr. Bhatia started the session by referring in the context of
the CCI whose job is to prevent the abuse of dominance. The CCI has to look into the research and
development done after mergers and amalgamations. He further gave a brief with regard to
cartelization with the help of many emerging cases and talked about how the IPR and Competition
supplements to each other. Besides, he discussed some landmark cases on abuse of dominance by
IPR holders – refusal to supply, refusal to grant access, refusal to grant license, refusal to provide
interface with an essential facility, demanding excess royalties, etc. He also discussed Art. 31 of
TRIPS which states that the patent holder may be asked to surrender the exclusive right under
exceptional circumstances like public health, etc. and the doctrine of exhaustion. He concluded with
the remark that ‘existence of IPR is fine, but exercise of IPR can be under competition law’.