The Competition Act does not impose specific rules for agency agreements and the prohibition of vertical restrictions applies to all agreements between companies operating at different stages or levels of the production chain. Under india`s Contracts Act, an “agent” refers to a person who is busy doing an act for another person or giving up another one when it comes to third parties; and the person for whom such an act occurs is called “principle.” Courts in India often have a distinctive character between the buyer-seller-relationships. As a result, the Agency requires the officer`s lack of independence and the continued monitoring of the contractor on the acts that have been attributed to the officer. A vertical agreement within the meaning of the Competition Act provides that the agreement involves at least two or more independent entities (or awarding entities). Therefore, it seems unlikely that the standard vertical restriction rules will apply to restrictions imposed by an agent by its adjudicating entity with the same rigour as the main agreements. In all ICC infringement proceedings, we assume that less than 5% of cases involve vertical restrictions. The vast majority of the ICC`s decisions to date relate to cartels and abuses of dominance. The ICC`s decision-making practice has confirmed that the ICC will only intervene in vertical restrictions if the company imposing the restriction has sufficient market power in the market in question and if there are disproportionate or objective justifications for the restrictions imposed. Any vertical restraint that could significantly affect or create competition in India is prohibited.
The Competition Commission of India (ICC) may assume responsibility for companies outside India as long as the vertical restrictions imposed by these companies affect the conditions of competition in India. The ICC often investigates companies outside India. For example, in 2011, the ICC rejected allegations of vertical restrictions allegedly imposed by Intel Corporation (a Delaware company) and its Indian subsidiary by setting targets and incentives, preventing distributors from manipulating their competitors` products and setting the resale price of their distributors. Even in a purely internet context, the ICC is responsible for assessing extraterritorial vertical restrictions when it considers that these restrictions affect the conditions of competition in India. 2.1 At a high level, what is the concern and control of vertical agreements? Keywords: Vertical Agreements, India Competition Commission, economic analysis, legal ambiguities, rule of reason Is the only purpose of the Vertical Restrictions Act economic, or is it also seeking to promote or protect other interests? Similarly, the ICC rejected the allegations of exclusivity in the distribution agreements because both parties to the agreement held insignificant market shares. The ICC found that this reduced the likelihood of a market lockdown (Automobiles Dealers Association v. Global Automobiles Limited – Ors. SIPL). The ICC confirmed its view in a recent preliminary decision, in which it indicated that the extent of the anti-competitive effects resulting from vertical restrictions would depend, among other things, on the market power of the large enterprise/platform (MMT Case).
2.5 What is the analytical framework for evaluating vertical agreements? In the Ramakant case, the Commission considered an exclusive agreement between Hiranandani Hospital and the Cyrobanks International India stem cell bank (“Cyrobank”).