KSLU Solved Question Papers
Competition Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2023 Sep Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Competition Law 2023 Sep 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 2023 Sep examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2023 Sep examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2023 Sep 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note/problems is compulsory from each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written either in English or Kannada completely.
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.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Discuss the evolution and need for competition law in India.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part I, evolution in brief (planned economy and the MRTP Act, 1969; the 1991 reforms; the Raghavan Committee; the Competition Act, 2002 and its 2007 and 2023 amendments), with a table; Part II, the need, point by point with Indian evidence: open markets need a referee; private cartels can replace public controls (Builders Association of India v. Cement Manufacturers' Association); consumers and public money (Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India); fair access for small firms; digital markets (In Re: Umar Javeed v. Google LLC); cross-border conduct (Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Mfrs. Association); a check on regulators and the State; investment and growth.
Part I: Evolution
India began with a planned economy, industrial licensing and a large public sector. The MRTP Act, 1969 aimed to stop "the concentration of economic power to the common detriment" and to curb monopolistic and restrictive trade practices. It controlled the size of big business houses and added unfair trade practices in 1984. The 1991 reforms removed most licensing and the MRTP Act's size controls. A High Level Committee chaired by S.V.S. Raghavan, set up on 25 October 1999, reported in May 2000 that a modern competition law was needed. The Competition Act, 2002 followed. It was amended in 2007 to restructure the Commission and create an appellate tribunal. Its enforcement began in 2009 and merger control in 2011. The 2023 amendment added deal value thresholds, settlements and commitments.
| Period | Law | Approach |
|---|---|---|
| 1969 to 1991 | MRTP Act | Control size and restrictive practices |
| 1991 to 2009 | MRTP Act after the 1991 amendment | Conduct only, weak remedies |
| 2009 onwards | Competition Act, 2002 | Agreements, abuse, combinations, real penalties |
Part II: Why India needs competition law
1. Open markets need a referee. Liberalisation removed the State's controls on entry and prices. Without a law, firms could restore those controls privately, by agreement or by abuse of power. The Raghavan Committee put competition at the foundation of "an efficiently working market system".
2. Cartels can replace licensing. Builders Association of India v. Cement Manufacturers' Association, decided by the Commission on 20 June 2012, shows this. Cement makers met through their association, which collected and circulated prices and production data. They held back production while demand rose, and prices climbed. The Commission found a cartel and imposed heavy penalties. It reaffirmed the order on 31 August 2016, and the NCLAT upheld it on 25 July 2018. Appeals are pending in the Supreme Court.
3. Consumers and public money need protection. Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, (2017) 8 SCC 47, decided on 8 May 2017, concerned identical bids by makers of aluminium phosphide tablets to the Food Corporation of India, and a joint boycott of its tender. The Supreme Court upheld the finding of a cartel and bid rigging under section 3(3). Without competition law, public procurement would be at the mercy of rigged bids.
4. Small firms need fair access. Large firms can shut smaller rivals out of markets they depend on. In Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., decided on 25 August 2014, fourteen car makers kept genuine spare parts and diagnostic tools away from independent garages. The Commission held this an abuse of dominance in each brand's aftermarket. It ordered the parts and tools to be made available, opening the repair market to small workshops.
5. Digital markets need watching. In Re: Umar Javeed v. Google LLC, decided on 20 October 2022, shows the new frontier. Google required phone makers to pre-install its apps and used its Play Store to protect its search, Chrome and YouTube. The Commission found abuse of dominance and imposed Rs 1,337.76 crore. The NCLAT upheld the findings and the penalty on 29 March 2023.
6. Conduct abroad must be reachable. Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Mfrs. Association, (2002) 6 SCC 600, decided on 22 July 2002, held that the MRTP Commission could not act against sales made abroad. The Court added that the MRTP Act could not touch cartel formation abroad. Global markets need a law that can act on effects in India, which section 32 of the 2002 Act now provides.
7. The State and regulators need a competition voice. Government enterprises engaged in trade are "enterprises" under section 2(h). Sections 21, 21A and 49 let the Commission advise regulators and governments.
8. Investment and growth. Investors need predictable, fair rules. Competition pushes firms to cut costs and innovate, which supports the economic development the Act's preamble names.
Conclusion. Indian competition law evolved from the MRTP Act's control of size to the 2002 Act's control of conduct, as the Raghavan Committee advised. It is needed because open markets can be captured by private cartels and dominant firms, as the cement and Google cases show. It also protects public money and consumers, as Excel Crop Care shows. Haridas Exports shows why it must reach conduct abroad.
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.