KSLU Solved Question Papers
Competition Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2022 Oct Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Competition Law 2022 Oct 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 2022 Oct examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2022 Oct examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2022 Oct 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 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 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 scope, objectives and reasons of M.R.T.P. Act.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the Act's dates (27 December 1969; in force 1 June 1970); Part I, the reasons for the Act (the Monopolies Inquiry Commission of 1965, concentration of economic power under licensing, Article 39(b) and (c), the need for a Commission), and the reasons for its later amendments (the Sachar Committee of 1978; the 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1991 amendments); Part II, the objectives (from the long title and the Statement of Objects); Part III, the scope (territory, goods and services, trade practices, undertakings, dominance, exemptions under section 3, the four areas of control, the machinery), with In re Delhi Public School on services, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement on restrictive practices and Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Mfrs. Association on limits abroad; a table of amendments; an assessment and the repeal in 2009.
Introduction
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act) received assent on 27 December 1969. It came into force on 1 June 1970. It was India's first general law on monopolies and trade practices. It governed the field for almost forty years, until the Competition Act, 2002 replaced it from 1 September 2009.
Part I: The reasons for the Act
1. The Monopolies Inquiry Commission. The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the Bill was "in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Monopolies Inquiry Commission". That Commission reported on 31 October 1965. The Government's decisions on it were laid before Parliament on 6 September 1966. The structure of the Bill "basically remains the same" as the Commission recommended.
2. Concentration of economic power. In a planned economy with industrial licensing, a few large business groups had grown very large. The Bill therefore sought "comprehensive control over undertakings" which, with their inter-connected undertakings, commanded assets of Rs 20 crore or more. The aim was "to more effectively control concentration of economic power".
3. The constitutional direction. Article 39(c) directs the State to ensure that the economic system does not result in "the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment". The Act's opening words repeat that idea almost exactly.
4. Harmful trade practices. Traders could fix prices, tie sales, impose exclusive dealing or keep resale prices up. No general law controlled such practices.
5. A specialised body. The Bill proposed a Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. It would have "mandatory powers" over restrictive trade practices. For monopolistic practices and concentration it would only advise, and "the final decision would lie with the Government".
Reasons for the later amendments
- 1982. To encourage exports and productivity, the share that made an undertaking "dominant" was reduced from one-third to one-fourth, and licensed capacity became a test.
- 1984. The Sachar Committee (High Powered Expert Committee), reporting in August 1978, had recommended covering unfair trade practices. The 1984 amendment did so. Its Statement explains that "the consumer needs to be protected not only from the effects of restrictive practices but also from practices which are resorted to by the trade and industry to mislead or dupe him".
- 1985. The asset limit fixed in 1969 at Rs 20 crore was raised to Rs 100 crore, because projects had grown in cost.
- 1986. An individual consumer and a voluntary consumers' association gained the right to file a complaint and be heard.
- 1991. Pre-entry restriction "has outlived its utility and has become hindrance to the speedy implementation of industrial projects". Sections 20 to 26 were omitted. The Commission's inquiry powers and the punishment for disobeying its orders were strengthened.
Part II: The objectives
The long title states the Act's objects: to provide "that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic power to the common detriment, for the control of monopolies, for the prohibition of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices". From 1984 a further object was added in substance: protecting consumers from unfair trade practices. In short, the objectives were:
- to prevent concentration of economic power to the common detriment;
- to control monopolies;
- to prohibit monopolistic trade practices;
- to prohibit restrictive trade practices;
- from 1984, to prohibit unfair trade practices.
The 1991 Statement records the Act's "basic philosophy". It "was never to inhibit growth in any manner but to ensure that such growth is channelised for the public good".
Part III: The scope
1. Territory. The Act extended "to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir" (section 1(2)).
2. Goods and services. It covered goods and "service" (section 2(r)), which included banking, financing, insurance, transport and, from 1991, chit funds and real estate. In re Delhi Public School, [1994] 80 Comp Cas 734, decided on 4 March 1994, shows how far this reached. A school charged registration fees to applicants for admission. The MRTP Commission held that education is a service and that applicants are its "potential users", so it had jurisdiction.
3. Trade practices. A "trade practice" was any practice relating to trade, including "a single or isolated action of any person" (section 2(u)).
4. Undertakings and dominance. The Act applied to undertakings, and specially to dominant and inter-connected undertakings. After 1982 an undertaking controlling one-fourth of any goods or services in India, or a substantial part of it, was dominant (section 2(d)).
5. Exemptions. Section 3, unless the Government directed otherwise, kept certain undertakings outside the Act. As enacted, these included undertakings owned or controlled by the Government, Government companies or statutory corporations, and trade unions. The 1984 amendment added co-operative societies and financial institutions.
6. The four areas of control.
- Concentration (Chapter III): approval for expansion, new undertakings, mergers and amalgamations of large undertakings, until 1991.
- Monopolistic trade practices (section 2(i)): inquiry by the Commission and orders by the Government (section 31).
- Restrictive trade practices (section 2(o)): registration of agreements (section 35), inquiry (section 37) and the gateways in section 38.
- Unfair trade practices (section 36A): from 1984.
How restrictive practices were judged is shown by Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement, (1977) 2 SCC 55, decided on 21 January 1977. The Supreme Court held that Telco's territorial and exclusive dealership terms were not restrictive. It applied "the rule of reason", looking at their actual effect on competition.
7. Machinery. The MRTP Commission (section 5) and the Director General of Investigation and Registration (section 8) administered the Act. Appeals lay to the Supreme Court (section 55).
8. Limits abroad. Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Mfrs. Association, (2002) 6 SCC 600, decided on 22 July 2002, marked the edge of the Act's scope. The MRTP Commission had restrained Indonesian makers from exporting float glass to India. The Supreme Court held that it had no extra-territorial jurisdiction. It could act only on the Indian leg of a practice.
The Act's journey at a glance
| Year | Change |
|---|---|
| 1969 | Enacted, on the Monopolies Inquiry Commission's report |
| 1970 | In force from 1 June |
| 1982 | Dominance at one-fourth; licensed capacity test |
| 1984 | Unfair trade practices added (Sachar Committee) |
| 1985 | Asset limit raised from Rs 20 crore to Rs 100 crore |
| 1986 | Individual consumers may complain |
| 1991 | Pre-entry controls (sections 20 to 26) omitted |
| 2009 | Repealed from 1 September by the Competition Act, 2002 |
Assessment
The Act served its purpose in a licensed economy, checking the growth of large houses and curbing restrictive practices. Its weaknesses grew with liberalisation. It judged size rather than conduct, had no merger review after 1991 and could not impose penalties for the practices themselves. Its Commission could only advise on monopolistic practices, leaving the decision to the Government. The Raghavan Committee therefore recommended replacing it, which the Competition Act, 2002 did.
Conclusion. The MRTP Act was passed on the Monopolies Inquiry Commission's report. Its aims were to prevent concentration of economic power, as Article 39(c) directs, and to control monopolistic and restrictive trade practices. Its objectives grew in 1984 to protect consumers from unfair trade practices, and its size controls ended in 1991. Its scope covered all of India except Jammu and Kashmir, goods and services and four areas of control. Delhi Public School shows its reach, TELCO its rule of reason and Haridas Exports its limits. It was repealed from 1 September 2009.
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.