1

Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Ltd. Haryana Urban Development Authority Department of Town and

Country Planning, State of Haryana, [2011] 104 CLA 398 (CCI).

2 §2(h), The Competition Act, No. 12 of 2003, INDIA CODE (2002) [for brevity ‘Competition Act’].

3 Competition Act, supra note 2, §4.

4
1 S.M. DUGAR, GUIDE TO COMPETITION LAW 423 (Arijit Pasayat et al. eds., 6th ed. 2016) [for brevity ‘SM Dugar’].
-

5 Competition Act, supra note 2, §2(r).

6 Matrimony.com Ltd. v. Google India (P) Ltd., Case No. 07 and 30 of 2012 (CCI).

7
Competition Act, supra note 2, §2(t).

8 See: Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community Competition Law,
(97/C372/03), ¶2.

9 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 127; See also: Case T-340/03, France Telecom SA v. Commission, [2003] E.C.R. II- 107,
¶81.

10
See: Case COMP/M. 1672, Volvo/Scania [2001] O.J. L 143/74, ¶56.

11 JONATHAN FAULL & ALI NIKPAY, THE EU LAW OF COMPETITION 47 ¶1.147, (3rd ed. 2014) [for brevity ‘F&N’].

12 Moot Proposition, ¶3.

13
Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 US 201 (2018); See also: Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 US
594 (1953).

14 F&N, supra note 11 at 48, ¶1.148.

15 Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal and Ors., Case No. 17 of 2014 (CCI); See also: Deepak Verma v. Clues Network (P) Ltd.,
Case No. 34 of 2016 (CCI).

16
Competition Act, supra note 2, §2(s).

17 All India Online Vendors Association v. Flipkart India (P) Ltd., Case No. 20 of 2018 (CCI), ¶26.

18 Case T-340/03, France Telecom SA v. Commission, [2009] 4 CMLR 25, ¶81.

19
See: Moot Proposition, ¶2.

20 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 421; See also: Mrs. Manju Tharad, Proprietress and M/s. Manoranjan Films,

Kolkata v. Eastern India Motion Picture Association, Kolkata and The Censor Board of Film Certification, Kolkata,
[2012] 110 CLA 136 (CCI).

21 American Needle v. National Football League, 560 US 283 (2010).

22
ABIR ROY, COMPETITION LAW IN INDIA : A PRACTICAL GUIDE 158 (2nd ed. 2016) [for brevity ‘Abir Roy’]

23 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 422.

24 Competition Act, supra note 2, §5, Explanation (b).

25
National Insurance Companies Ltd & Ors v. Competition Commission of India, 2017 CompLR 1 (COMPAT).

26 Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd. (ARIL) v. Ministry of Railways (MoR) through the Chairman, Railway Board and
Container Corporation of India Ltd, (CONCOR), [2013] 112 CLA 297 (CCI).

27 Shell International Company Ltd. v. Commission of European Communities, [1992] ECR II-757; See also: HFB
Holdings fur Fernwarmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellsschaft GmbH & Co. KG and Others v. Commission of the
European Communities, [2002] ECR II-1487.

28
§166, The Companies Act, Act 18 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2013).

29 See: §149, The Companies Act, Act 18 of 2013, INDIA CODE (2013).

30 In Re, Delhi Jal Board v. Grasim Industries Ltd., [2017] SCC OnLine CCI 48.

31
SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 451.

32 See: Indian Sugar Mills Association v. Indian Jute Mills Association (IJMA), 2014 CompLR 225 (CCI).
33 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 451.

34
Consumer Online Foundation v. Tata Sky Limited, Dish TV India Limited, Reliance Big TV Ltd. and Sun Direct TV
(P) Ltd., Case No. 2 of 2009 (CCI); See also: Dish Tv India Ltd. v. Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited, Case No. 78 of
2013 (CCI).
-

35 Manappuram Jewellers (P) Ltd. v. Kerala Gold & Silver Dealers Association, 2012 CompLR 548 (CCI); See: Jyoti
Swaroop Arora v. Tulip Infratech Ltd., 2015 CompLR 109 (CCI).

36 Exclusive Motors (P) Ltd. v. Automobili Lamborghini SPA, [2014] 121 CLA 230 (CAT); Shri Pravahan Mohanty v.

HDFC Bank Ltd. and Card Services Division of the HDFC Bank, Case No. 17 of 2010 (CCI).

37
Hoffman-La Roche & Co. v. Commission, [1979] ECR 461; See also: United Brands v. Commission, [1978] ECR 207.

38 Ramakant Kini v. Dr. LH Hiranandani Hospital Pawai, Case No. 39 of 2012 (CCI).

39 M/s HNG Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, 2014 CompLR 304 (COMPAT).

40 Unilateral conduct workbook, Chapter 3, Assessment of Dominance, prepared by The Unilateral Conduct

Working Group, The Hague, Netherlands, (2011).

41 Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. v. Gujarat Gas Company Limited, 2015 CompLR 431 (CCI).

42 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 423.

43 See : The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, 2014 CompLR 304
(COMPAT).

44 Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 CompLR 1009 (CCI).

45 Moot Proposition, ¶1.

46 Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 CompLR 1009 (CCI).

47 Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Ltd. Haryana Urban Development Authority Department of Town and

Country Planning, State of Haryana, [2011] 104 CLA 398 (CCI); See also: Commercial Solvents v. Commission, [1974]
ECR 223.

48 See: M/s Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. v. M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., 2013 CompLR 910 (CCI).
49 See: Moot Proposition, ¶7(f).

50 H.M.M. Ltd. v. Director General, MRTPC, (1998) 6 SCC 485.

51 R v. Re A Loyalty Bus Bonus Scheme, (2001) ECC 19.

52 Mr. Om Datt Sharma v. M/s Adidas AG, M/s Reebok International Ltd. and M/s Reebok India Company, 2014
CompLR 180 (CCI).

53 See: Ghanshyam Das Vij v. Bajaj Corp Ltd & Others, Case No. 68 of 2013 (CCI).

54 Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) v. TAM Media Research (P) Ltd. Case 70 of 2012 (CCI).

55 See: Case C-525/16, MEO v. Autoridade da Concorrência, EU : C : 2018 : 270; See also: Case C-413/14, Intel
Corporation Inc v. Commission, EU : C : 2017 : 632, ¶22.

56 Abir Roy, supra note 22 at 186.

57 Case C-62/86, AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission of European Communities, ECLI : EU : C : 1991 : 286, ¶145; See
also: Case T-83/91, Tetra Pak II v. Commission of European Communities, ECLI : EU : T : 1994 : 246.

58 Case T-340/03, France TÉlÉcom SA v. Commission of the European Communities, ECLI : EU : T : 2007 : 22.

59 F&N, supra note 11 at 48, ¶1.148.

60 Case C-23/14, Post Denmark A/S v. KonkurrencerÅdet, ECLI : EU : C : 2015 : 651.

61 F&N, supra note 11 at 48, ¶1.148.

62 See: Moot Proposition, ¶1.

63 In re, Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. and Anr., Case No. 03 of 2017 (CCI).
64 List of Clarifications, No. 9 at pg. no 3.
-

65 F&N, supra note 11 at 48, ¶1.148.

66 Atos Worldline India (P) Ltd. v. Verifone India Sales (P) Ltd., 2015 CompLR 327 (CCI).

67 Case T-201/04, Microsoft Corporation v. Commission. [2007] ECR II-3601.

68 See: List of Clarifications, No. 34 at pg. no 8.

69 Moot proposition, ¶7(d).

70 See: Jefferson Parish Hospital v. Hyde, 466 US 2 (1984).

71 The National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, 2014 CompLR 304 (COMPAT).

72 ALISON JONES & BRENDA SUFRIN, EU COMPETITION LAW, TEXTS, CASES AND MATERIALS, 398 (6th ed, Oxford
University Press 2016).

73 Three D Integrated Solutions Ltd. v. VeriFone India Sales (P) Ltd., 2015 CompLR 464 (CCI).

74 See: Sh. Dhanraj Pillay v. M/s Hockey India, 2013 CompLR 543 (CCI).

75 See: CBEM v. CLT and IPB, [1985] ECR 3261.

76 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 423.

77 List of Clarifications, No. 8 at pg. no 3.

78 See: Moot Proposition, ¶7(c).

79 Case C-52/09, Konkurrensverket v. TeliaSonera Sverige AB, ECLI : EU : C : 2011 : 83.

80 1 S.M. DUGAR, GUIDE TO COMPETITION LAW 423, (Arijit Pasayat et al. eds., 6th ed. 2016).

81 Suresh Chandra v. State of W.B., AIR 1976 Cal 110; See also: BRYAN A. GARNER, EIGHTH EDITION, BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY.

82 Competition Act, supra note 2, § 2(b).

83 Abir Roy, supra note 22 at 46.

84 In Re, British Basic Slag Ltd., (1962) LR 3 RP 179.

85 See: Moot Proposition, ¶7(h).

86 Film & Television Producers Guild of India v. MAI, Case No. 37 of 201 (CCI).

87 All India Motor Transport Congress v. Indian Foundation of Transport Research & Training, Appeal No. 20 of
2015 (COMPAT).

88 American Tobacco Co. v. United States, (1946) 328 US 781.

89 In Re : Federation of Indian Airlines, Case No. RTPE 3 of 2008, (CCI).

90 Shailesh Kumar v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., Case No. 66 of 2011, (CCI).

91 DG (IR) v. Modi Alkali and Chemicals Ltd, 2002 CTJ 459.

92
In Re, Alleged cartelization in the matter of supply of spares to Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Indian Railways,
Patiala, Punjab, [2014] CCI 32.

93 Jyoti Swaroop Arora v. CCI & Ors., (2016) 231 DLT 396.

94 Maurice E. Stucke, Is Competition always good?, 1, JOURNAL OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT, 162, 162-197
(2013); See also: Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 US 752 (1984).
95
See: Moot Proposition, ¶7(h).

96 Maurice E. Stucke, Is Competition always good?, 1, JOURNAL OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT, 162, 162-197
(2013).

97 Competition Commission v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 744.

98
In Re, Suo-Moto Case Against LPG Cylinder Manufactures, 2012 SCC OnLine CCI 12.
-

99 Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1718.

100 Raghavan Committee Report, Report of High-Level Committee on Competition Policy Law, ¶4.3-1.

101
Swastik Stevedores (P) Ltd. v. Dumper Owner's Association, 2015 CompLR 212 (CCI).

102 Moot Proposition, ¶2.

103 Swastik Stevedores (P) Ltd. v. Dumper Owner's Association, 2015 CompLR 212 (CCI).

104
Moot Proposition, ¶3.

105 See: Moot Proposition, ¶7(g).

106 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 421.

107
In Re, Alleged cartelization in supply of LPG Cylinders procured through tenders by Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) v. Allampally Brothers Ltd., Case No. 64 of 2014 (CCI), ¶120.

108 Case T-86/95, Compagnie Generale Maritime, [2002] ECR II-1011.

109 Case C-360/92 P. Publishers Association, [1995] ECR I-23; See also: ALISON JONES & BRENDA SUFRIN, EU

COMPETITION LAW, TEXTS, CASES AND MATERIALS, 252 (6th ed., Oxford University Press 2016).

110
Ajay Devgun Films v. Yash Raj Films (P) Ltd, 2012 SCC OnLine Comp AT 233.

111 Guidelines on the Application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty, (2004/C101/08), ¶ 33.

112 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 188.

113
Moot Proposition ¶7(h).

114 List of Clarifications, No. 21 at pg. no 5.

115 See: Avinash Amarnath, The Oligopoly Problem : Structural and Behavioural Solutions Under the Indian

Competition Law, 55, JILI 283, 298-300 (2013).

116
Mohan Meakins limited, RTP Enquiry No. 65 of 1984 (MRTPC).

117 Fx Enterprise Solutions v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Case No. 36 of 2014 (CCI).

118 Moot Proposition, ¶7(g).

119
Ben Klopack & Nicola Pierri, Vertical contracting and price parity agreements : evidence from hotels in

Europe (2016), available at http:/stanford.edu/bopack/Vertical_Contracting_and_Price_Parity_Agreements.pdf.

120 Competition Act, supra note 2, §4(2)(a).

121 See: Competition Act, supra note 2, §18.

122
SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 360.

123 Moot Proposition, ¶3.

124 In re, Meera metal industries, RTP Enquiry No. 19 of 1986 (MRTPC).

125
RRTA v. Amar dye Chem, RTP Enquiry No. 51 of 1975 (MRTPC).

126 DLF v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 622.

127 Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. park, 220 US 373 (1911).

128
In re, SCGH v. L&T., [2013] CCI 69.

129 §19(3), The Competition Act, No. 12 of 2003, INDIA CODE (2002).

130 CCI v. Artistes & Technicians, (2017) 5 SCC 17.

131
Ghanshyam Dass Vij and Bajaj Corp. Ltd. [2015] CCI 155.

132 Excel Corp Care v. CCI, (2017) 8 SCC 47.

-

133 CCI v. Artistes & Technicians, (2017) 5 SCC 17.

134
Moot Proposition, ¶3.

135 European Commission Guidelines on Vertical Restraints, (2010/C130/01) ¶411.

136 Faridabad Industries v. Adani Gas Limited, Case No. 71 of 2012 (CCI).

137
Competition Act, supra note 2, §19(3)(b).

138 AZB and Partners, Vertical Agreements in India (2019), available at

http:/gettingthedealthrough.com/area/41//vertical-agreements-india/.

139 Moot proposition, ¶7(h).

140 Ariel Ezrachi, The Competitive Effects of Parity Caluses on Online Commerce, 55, OLS 88, 101-103 (2015).

141 Competition Commission of India, Market Study on e-commerce in India : Key Findings and Observations

(2020), available at http:/www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/whats_/Market-study-on-e-Commerce-in-India.pdf

142 Moot Proposition, ¶1-2.

143 List of Clarifications, No. 20 at pg. no 5.

144 Frank Mathewson & Ralph Winter, The Law and Economics of Resale Price Maintenance, 13, REV. IND. ORG.
57, 72 (1998).

145 Moot proposition, ¶4.

146 All India Online Vendors Association v. Flipkart India (P) Ltd., Case No. 20 of 2018 (CCI).
147 Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, The Economics of Resale Price Maintenance, 3, ABA SAL 156, 165-166
(2008).

148 R v. William E. Coutts Co., [1968] 1 O.R. 549.

149 Ittai Paldor, The Vertical Restraints Paradox : Justifying the Different Legal Treatment of Price and Non-Price
Vertical Restraints, 58, THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW JOURNAL 317, 317-353 (2008).

150 Mohit Manglani v. Flipkart India, 2015 SCC OnLine CCI 61.

151 RICHARD WHISH, COMPETITION LAW 655 (David Bailey, ed. 2017) [for brevity ‘Richard Whish’]

152 William Breit, Resale Price Maintenance : What Do Economists Know and When Did They Know It, 147, J.
INSTITUTIONAL & THEORETICAL ECON. 72, 72 (1991).

153 Moot Proposition, ¶7(d).

154 Lester G. Telser, Why Should Manufacturers Want Fair Trade II, 33, J.L. & ECON. 409, 415-416 (1990).

155 Moot Proposition, ¶10.

156 §27, The Competition Act, No. 12 of 2003, INDIA CODE (2002).

157 Moot Proposition, ¶7(h).

158 List of Clarifications, No. 21 at pg. no 5.

159 Moot Proposition, ¶5.

160 Richard Whish, supra note 151 at 655.

161 Competition Act, supra note 2, §3(3).

162 Samir Agarwal v. ANI Technologies, 2018 SCC OnLine CCI 86.

163 Moot Proposition, ¶10.

164 Iga Małobęcka, Hub-and-spoke cartel — how to assess horizontal collusion in disguise?, 8, AKADEMIA LEONA
KOŹMIŃSKIEGO 64, 64-78 (2016).

165 See: Fx Enterprise Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Case No. 36 of 2014 (CCI); Crown
-

Theatre v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation, Case No. 16 of 2014 (CCI).

166 List of Clarifications, No. 25 at pg. no. 6.

167 All India Distillers' Association v. Haidyn Glass Ltd., [2010] CCI 1.

168 List of Clarifications, No. 25 at pg. no. 6.

169 Moot proposition, ¶12.

170 Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 US 208 (1939).

171 List of Clarifications, No. 25 at pg. no. 6.

172 Moot proposition, ¶3.

173 Argos Ltd. and Littlewoods Ltd. v. Office of Fair Trading and JBB Sports plc., [2006] EWCA Civ 1318.

174 Case T-99/04, AC-Treuhand v. Commission, [2008] ECR II-1501, ¶ 130.

175 List of Clarifications, No. 21 at pg. no 5.

176 Moot proposition, ¶10.

177 Moot proposition, ¶10.

178 Competition Act, supra note 2, § 3.

179 Neeraj Malhotra v. Deutsche Bank, Case No. 5 of 2009 (CCI).

180 Moot Proposition, ¶11(d).

181 Jyoti Swaroop Arora v. Tulip Infratech, Case No. 59 of 2011 (CCI).

182 Builders Associations v. Cement manufacturers Association, Case no. 29 of 2010 (CCI).

183 Rajasthan Cylinders v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1718.

184 Indian Sugar Mills Association v. Indian Jute Mills Association, [2014] CCI 90.

185 SM Dugar, supra note 4 at 190.

186 Moot Proposition, ¶11(a).

187 Moot Proposition, ¶11(a).

188 Top Performance Motors Ltd v. Ira Berk (Queensland) Pty. Ltd., (1975) 24 FLR 286 (Austl.).

189 Moot Proposition, ¶11(d); See also: In Re, Alleged Cartelization by Steel Producers, Case No. RTPE No. 09 of
2008 (CCI).

190 Film & Television Producers Guild of India v. MAI, Case No. 37 of 2011 (CCI).

191 Areca v. Commission, (2011) ECR-II-63 (EU).

192
Richard Whish, supra note 151 at 576.

193 Subhas Chanda v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 878.

194 Moot Proposition, ¶11(c).

195
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 101.

196 Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of The Treaty on The Functioning of the European Union to
Horizontal Co-operation Agreements, (2011/C11/01), ¶ 86.

197 Moot Proposition, ¶12.

198
William E. Kovacic et. al., Plus Factors and Agreement in Antitrust Law, 110, MICH. L. REV. 393, 398-400 (2011).

199 United States v. Socony-Vacuum, 310 US 150 (1940).

-

200 See: In Re, Sheth & Co., Case No. 04 of 2013 (CCI).

201
See: Moot Proposition, ¶11(b).

202 See: Moot Proposition, ¶2.

203 Samir Agarwal and ANI Technologies (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine CCI 86; See also: United States v.
Socony- Vacuum, 310 US 150 (1940).

204
In Re, Manufacturers of Asbestos Cement Products Suo-Moto Case No. 01 of 2012 (CCI).

205 List of Clarifications, No. 12 at pg. no. 3.

206 List of Clarifications, No. 9 at pg. no. 3.

207
Builders Association of India v. Cement Manufacturers' Association, Case No. 29 of 2010 (CCI).

208 Competition Act, supra note 2, §19(3).

209 All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists v. CCI, Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (COMPAT).

210
Competition Act, supra note 2, §3(3)(a).

211 Richard Whish, supra note 151 at 562.

212 See: In Re, Cartelisation in respect of zinc carbon dry cell batteries market in India v. Eveready
Industries India Ltd., Suo Motu Case No. 02 of 2016 (CCI).

213
FICCI-Multiplex Association of India v. United Producers/Distributors forum, Case No. 1 of 2009 (CCI),
¶23.9 & ¶23.52.