A particularly serious type of anti-competitive agreement would be cartels. Agreements on cartels and abuse of dominance generally consist of setting prices, manipulating tendering procedures, dividing markets or limiting production. As a result, cartels have little or no incentive to lower prices or offer better quality goods or services. According to economic studies, cartels overload an average of 30%. There are four main types of agreements: Stationers Supply Pty Ltd v Victorian Authorized Newsagents Associated Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 35 Aim to significantly reduce competition; Exclusive Trade Before considering the disputes of the parties and judgments, it is important to understand the legal framework applicable to the case. An “agreement” is defined in 2 (b) as any agreement, understanding or action in the concert. According to Section 2, Point L), “person” includes, among other things, the individual, the association of the person, even created or not, communities, corporations or artificial enterprises, etc. Section 3 imposes an embargo on a person, a company or their respective associations upon reaching an agreement on the production, supply, distribution, storage, thought or control of goods or services that are originally or likely to materially affect competition in India. In particular, Section 3, paragraph 1, prohibits anti-competitive agreements that are considered to be nullified under Article 3, paragraph 2.
Section 3, paragraph 3, point b) states that any agreement that limits or controls production, supply, market, technical development, investment or service delivery is contrary to competition. Section 19, paragraph 1, authorizes the ICC to request such agreements on the basis of the factors covered in paragraph 19, paragraph 3, which are, among other things, agreements that create barriers to new entrants or erode competition by preventing entry into the market. Section 19, paragraph 6, lists the factors for determining the geographic market at issue, while paragraph 19, paragraph 7, lists the factors determining the market for the products in question. 4.3 Analysis: Over the years, the ICC has always considered that a contract in question should not be defined for the Section 3 analysis. This view is now evolving in light of SC`s observation to determine the market in question over which competition is affected, including for the consideration of the existence of an anti-competitive agreement. In Builders Association of India5, the ICC found that the determination of the market at issue was not a precondition for the analysis of anti-competitive conduct and that the distinction between the market and the market in question was contemplated. This last point has also been broadened by the extension of the determinants to the induced market, which is not defined anywhere in the law. The concept of market appears in sections 3 and 19 (3), while the market in question appears in sections 4, 19 (5), 6) and 7 when the provision is made only for the analysis of abuse of dominant position.
The judgment is therefore a departure from the principle of statutory interpretation, which requires courts to interpret words on the basis of their clear meaning, unless the literal interpretation has led to absurdity or rendered the legislation null and void.