KSLU Solved Question Papers
Competition Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Competition Law 2016 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2016 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 2 hours · Total marks 50 · 10 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1Explain the evolution of Competition law in India and U.S.A.[12]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part I, the United States in stages: the trusts and the Sherman Act, 1890; the courts' rule of reason and per se rule (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, United States v. Trenton Potteries Co.); the Clayton and FTC Acts, 1914; the Robinson-Patman Act, 1936, the Wheeler-Lea Act, 1938 and the Celler-Kefauver Act, 1950 (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States); merger notice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 1976; the economic turn (Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.); Part II, India in stages: the MRTP Act, 1969 and its amendments (Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement); liberalisation and the Raghavan Committee; the Competition Act, 2002 (Brahm Dutt v. Union of India), its 2007, 2017 and 2023 changes; Part III, a comparison and what India borrowed.
Part I: The United States
1. The trusts and the Sherman Act, 1890. After the Civil War, giant "trusts" combined rival firms under common control. The Standard Oil trust of 1882 was the best known. Farmers and small traders demanded action. On 2 July 1890 Congress passed the Sherman Act. Section 1 made illegal every contract, combination or conspiracy "in restraint of trade". Section 2 punished monopolisation and attempts to monopolise.
2. The courts build the law. The Act's words were broad, so the Supreme Court shaped them. In Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), it adopted "the standard of reason": only unreasonable restraints are illegal. It also ordered the Standard Oil combination dissolved. In United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 (1927), it held price fixing unlawful whether or not the price was reasonable. This was the start of the per se rule.
3. The 1914 Acts. The Sherman Act punished harm after it happened. The Clayton Act of 15 October 1914 attacked specific practices in their beginnings: price discrimination, tying and exclusive dealing, anti-competitive acquisitions and interlocking directorates. It also gave injured persons treble damages. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 26 September 1914 created an expert commission to stop "unfair methods of competition".
4. Strengthening the Acts. The Robinson-Patman Act of 19 June 1936 rewrote the ban on price discrimination to protect small retailers. The Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938 let the FTC act against unfair or deceptive practices harming consumers. The Celler-Kefauver Act of 29 December 1950 extended section 7 of the Clayton Act to purchases of assets. In Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962), the Court relied on that amendment's concern about rising concentration to block a shoe merger.
5. Merger notice. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 30 September 1976 required large mergers to be notified before completion, with a waiting period. Review moved before the deal rather than after it.
6. The economic turn. From the late 1970s, courts gave more weight to economic analysis and consumer welfare. In Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), a predatory pricing claim required prices below cost and a real prospect of recoupment. "Without recoupment", low prices simply benefit consumers.
Part II: India
1. The planned economy and the MRTP Act, 1969. India chose licensing and a large public sector. The Monopolies Inquiry Commission reported in 1965 on the concentration of economic power. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act was passed on 27 December 1969 and came into force on 1 June 1970. It controlled the growth of large business houses and restrictive and monopolistic trade practices.
2. The MRTP years. In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement, (1977) 2 SCC 55, the Supreme Court adopted the rule of reason. Telco's territorial and exclusive dealing clauses were upheld because they did not restrict competition. Amendments followed. Dominance was set at one-fourth (1982) and unfair trade practices were added on the Sachar Committee's advice (1984). The asset limit rose to Rs 100 crore (1985), and consumers could complain directly (1986).
3. Liberalisation. The 1991 reforms ended most licensing. The MRTP (Amendment) Act, 1991 dropped the pre-entry controls on large firms, saying they had "outlived" their utility. A law aimed at size no longer fitted an open economy.
4. The Raghavan Committee. Set up on 25 October 1999, it reported in May 2000. It recommended a modern law on agreements, abuse of dominance and combinations, enforced by a Competition Commission, and the repeal of the MRTP Act.
5. The Competition Act, 2002. It received assent on 13 January 2003. Its selection rules were challenged in Brahm Dutt v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 431, decided on 20 January 2005. The Supreme Court noted the Commission's "adjudicatory functions" and left the challenge open, as amendments were promised. The 2007 Amendment followed, with a Chief Justice-led selection committee and an appellate tribunal.
6. Enforcement and reform. Sections 3 and 4 came into force on 20 May 2009 and the MRTP Act was repealed from 1 September 2009. Merger control began on 1 June 2011. Appeals moved to the NCLAT on 26 May 2017. The 2023 Amendment added a deal value threshold, settlements, commitments and penalties on global turnover, in force in stages to September 2024.
Part III: The two compared
| Point | United States | India |
|---|---|---|
| First law | Sherman Act, 1890 | MRTP Act, 1969 |
| Starting concern | Trusts and monopoly | Concentration of economic power |
| Shift | Case law, then economics | Size control to conduct control (2002) |
| Point | United States | India |
|---|---|---|
| Agreements | Section 1; rule of reason and per se | Section 3; presumption for cartels, effect for vertical |
| Single-firm conduct | Section 2, monopolisation | Section 4, abuse of dominance |
| Mergers | Clayton section 7; notice since 1976 | Sections 5 and 6; notice since 2011 |
| Enforcers | Courts, DOJ, FTC | Commission, DG, NCLAT, Supreme Court |
| Sanctions | Criminal and civil; treble damages | Civil penalties; compensation; prosecution for disobedience |
What India borrowed. India took the two pillars of the Sherman Act, agreements and single-firm conduct, and the Clayton Act's merger control. TELCO took the rule of reason in almost the same words as the American cases. But India chose an administrative regulator with civil penalties rather than criminal trials. Its dominance test follows the European model.
Conclusion. American law grew from the Sherman Act of 1890 through court-made rules, the 1914 Acts and later amendments to an economics-based law with merger notice. Indian law grew from the MRTP Act's control of size, through liberalisation and the Raghavan Committee, to the conduct-based Competition Act, 2002. Standard Oil, Brown Shoe and Brooke Group mark the American stages; TELCO, Brahm Dutt and the 2023 reforms mark the Indian ones. India borrowed America's structure but chose its own institutions.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 9 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.