KSLU Solved Question Papers
Competition Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 9
2026 Jan Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 9 Competition Law 2026 Jan 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 2026 Jan examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2026 Jan examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2026 Jan 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
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)Enumerate the changes made by the Amendment to Competition Act, 2007.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: why the 2002 Act was amended (Brahm Dutt v. Union of India); the Amendment Act (Act 39 of 2007) and its staged commencement; the changes to the Commission's structure (sections 8, 9, 22, Benches removed); information in place of complaint and the new inquiry procedure (sections 19, 26, 33); orders and penalties (sections 27, 28, 42 to 43A); compulsory notice of combinations (section 6); the Competition Appellate Tribunal (sections 53A to 53U); advocacy and the Fund; a table of old and new; what changed again after 2007.
Why the Act had to be amended
The Competition Act, 2002 received the President's assent on 13 January 2003. Its first scheme made the Competition Commission of India a mixed body. It was an expert regulator, but it also decided cases like a court, sat in Benches, awarded compensation and heard reviews. Appeals went straight to the Supreme Court.
Brahm Dutt v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 431, exposed the problem. An advocate challenged the rules for selecting the Chairperson and Members. He argued that a body with judicial functions must have judicial members chosen by the Chief Justice of India. The Union told the Court that it would amend the Act. The Court therefore left all questions open on 20 January 2005. It observed that it "might be appropriate" to create one body that is advisory and regulatory and another that is adjudicatory, with an appellate body. Parliament acted on that hint.
The Amendment Act and its commencement
The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Act 39 of 2007) received assent on 24 September 2007. It came into force in stages. The structural changes began on 12 October 2007. The enforcement changes began on 20 May 2009, the day sections 3 and 4 came into force. The combination changes began on 1 June 2011.
The changes, enumerated
- Composition (section 8). The original Act allowed a Chairperson and two to ten other Members. The amended section 8 provides a Chairperson and not less than two and not more than six other Members, all whole-time as before. The old alternative qualification of being, or being qualified to be, a High Court judge was dropped. Every Member now needs at least fifteen years of experience in a listed field.
- Selection (section 9). A Selection Committee now recommends the panel of names. It is headed by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee. It also has two Secretaries to the Government and two experts. This met the objection raised in Brahm Dutt.
- Benches abolished (sections 22 to 25). Sections 23 to 25 on Benches were omitted. Section 22 was rewritten so that the Commission decides at meetings by majority, with a quorum.
- Information instead of complaint (section 19). The words "receipt of a complaint" were replaced by "receipt of any information". In Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India, (2021) 3 SCC 136, the Supreme Court held that this change is significant. Any person may now inform the Commission, whether or not he is personally affected.
- A new inquiry procedure (section 26). The Commission first forms a prima facie opinion. It then directs the Director General to investigate, or closes the matter. After the report it either closes the case or proceeds to inquire.
- Interim orders (section 33). The Commission may temporarily restrain a party, even without notice, during an inquiry.
- Orders after inquiry (sections 27 and 28). The power to award compensation (old section 27(c)) and to recommend division of an enterprise (old section 27(f)) were removed. The Commission itself may now order division of a dominant enterprise under section 28. A new proviso to section 27 lets it pass orders against other members of the offender's group who contributed to the breach.
- Penalties sharpened (sections 42 to 43A). Section 42 now punishes non-compliance with orders. Section 43 punishes failure to follow directions. Section 43A was added to penalise failure to notify a combination.
- Combinations (section 6). Notice of a combination became compulsory. The words "may, at his or its option" were replaced by "shall". Section 6(2A) stopped a combination from taking effect until the waiting period ends or the Commission passes an order. The worldwide limbs of the section 5 thresholds were substituted, so that a minimum part of the assets or turnover must be in India.
- References (sections 21 and 21A). A statutory authority receives the Commission's opinion within sixty days. Under the new section 21A the Commission may in turn refer an issue to a sectoral regulator.
- Competition Appellate Tribunal (sections 53A to 53U). A new judicial Tribunal heard appeals against the Commission's orders and decided compensation claims (section 53N). A further appeal lay to the Supreme Court (section 53T). Old sections 34 (compensation), 37 (review) and 40 (appeal) were omitted.
- Advocacy and money (sections 49 and 51). State Governments may also seek the Commission's opinion on policy, which the Commission must give within sixty days (section 49(1)). Costs paid by parties no longer go into the Competition Fund, because clause (b) of section 51(1) was omitted. Penalties still go to the Consolidated Fund of India, as section 47 always required.
Old and new at a glance
| Subject | Before 2007 | After the 2007 Amendment |
|---|---|---|
| Members | Chairperson and 2 to 10 whole-time Members | Chairperson and 2 to 6 whole-time Members |
| Selection | Committee chosen by the Government under the 2003 Rules | Committee headed by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee |
| Starting a case | Complaint | Information from any person |
| Compensation | By the Commission | By the Appellate Tribunal (section 53N) |
| Appeal | Directly to the Supreme Court | To the Competition Appellate Tribunal, then the Supreme Court |
| Combination notice | Optional | Compulsory, with a waiting period |
How the new procedure was read
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744, was the first major test of the amended scheme. Jindal Steel complained about SAIL's exclusive supply agreement with Indian Railways. The Commission directed an investigation, and SAIL appealed to the new Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that a direction under section 26(1) is not appealable. It also held that section 33 interim orders must be used sparingly. The case shows that the 2007 design separated investigation, decision and appeal.
What changed after 2007
The Appellate Tribunal itself did not last. The Finance Act, 2017 abolished it from 26 May 2017 and made the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal the Appellate Tribunal (section 53A). The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 later added settlements, commitments and a deal value threshold. The 2007 Amendment, however, built the framework that still operates.
Conclusion. The 2007 Amendment turned the Commission into a smaller expert body chosen by a committee headed by the Chief Justice of India. It replaced complaints with information and laid down a staged inquiry. It made combination notices compulsory, sharpened penalties and created a separate appellate Tribunal. It answered the separation of powers concern left open in Brahm Dutt. The Tribunal was replaced by the NCLAT in 2017, but the rest of the 2007 scheme remains the core of the Act.
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.