Competition Law Cell 2017 - 18

Faculty Coordinator: Ms. Smita Sabne

Student Coordinators : Afreen Abbassi ( V BSL LLB ), Anuja Chaudhury ( III BA LLB ), Divyanshu Sharma ( V BSL LLB), Rohini Hirwane ( IV BA LLB ), Soham Goswami ( V BSL LLB ), Sonal Jain ( IV BA LLB ).

The competition law cell was convened in December 2016, it is supervised by faculty in-charge Mrs. Smita Sabne.

The main goal of the Cell is to provide an opportunity for students to broaden their knowledge of competition law and to interact with other students who have a shared interest in the same. Familiarising students with competition law and allow students to cultivate their interest in competition law in an informal environment, without the pressure of being graded. Expand students’ advocacy skills by conducting demonstrations. Conducting research leading to new insights and further the concept building of competition law.

Various Sessions and activities were organised to increase awareness of current and emerging issues in competition law.

Weekly sessions

The first session was on Resale Price Maintenance (“RPM”). This session was conducted by Afreen abbassi. Afreen spoke at length regarding the ingredients of establishing a violation of RPM under the act and the intricate issues that the regulator faces while investigating a case of vertical anti-competitive agreements. She also elucidated the pro-competitive effects of the practice that are highlighted by the opposite parties to demonstrate how the behaviour in question does not bring about Adverse Appreciable Effect on Competition (“AAEC”).She also discussed the Hyundai order passed by the CCI and discussed the possible future treatment of this practise under the competition act.

Second weekly session was conducted by Divyanshu Sharma. This session concerned the Merger control Regime in India. Divyanshu opened the discussion with defining combinations and the thresholds given the act. He explained how assessing merger and acquisition under section of the act is a futuristic exercise and discussed the various factors considered by the regulator while allowing a merger and discussed various instances where the regulator might be wary about the post-merger scenario considering which it will make modifications as per which the combination will be approved.

The third session this year was collaborative session of the international law Cell and the Competition law Cell, This session was conducted by Soham Goswami. Soham conducted the session EU Competition law regime. Discussed article 101 to 110 of the Treaty for the functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”). Soham also discussed the issue of state aid and subsidies and how it effects the competition in the territory. Article 101 and 102 of the TFEU concern antitrust violation ,session entailed how the European commission goes about investigating antitrust violations and discussion of various case laws exhibiting the robust characteristics of the antitrust regime in European union.

The next weekly session was also a collaborative session. The ILS IPR Cell and Competition Law Cell came together to have session on the Interface of Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law. The session saw a discussion on the purpose of competition law, areas of conflict between IP and Competition law, reconciliation of the objectives and understanding the jurisdictional issues of the CCI. The students also got to discuss the position of law in the backdrop of the cases like Microsoft v. Sun, HT Media v. Super Cassettes Industries and Ericsson v. CCI and Micromax.

The next weekly session was conducted Afreen Abbassi on Big data and Competition Law. The session encompassed the current issues concerning the development of big data and how big data gives enterprise an edge over their competitors. It entailed a discussion on how the regulator can step in to keep check on entities that are in possession of big data and prevent them from using it to the detriment of the market. The recent case of Google was used to demonstrate the effect big data has on the natural flow of market forces.

Induction of new members

The Cell this year inducted new members. a moot problem was given to the interested students and they were expected to choose a side and send in their arguments favouring that side. Induction of new members was done on the basis of these arguments. The problem for assessment of students for the purpose of induction was drafted by Divyanshu Sharma. The main issues in the problem were :
whether disparagement of fellow competitors is frowned upon under the competition act and the second issue concerned relevant turnover as a metric to penalise anti-competitive entities under Section 27 of the Act.