Law on Predatory Pricing in India

Law on Predatory Pricing in India

Therefore, DPIIT`s new policy was a welcome change. This policy is a commendable attempt to address the problem of predatory pricing and preferential treatment in the e-commerce sector by preventing markets from offering unjustified favourable advantages to certain suppliers and by ensuring that only fair and non-discriminatory cash rebates can be granted to affiliates. This limitation is a huge relief for millions of small merchants who can benefit from a new sales platform instead of feeling challenged by e-commerce. Certain conditions must be met for a case to qualify as predatory pricing – In Reliance Jio`s decision, when considering predatory pricing allegations by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, CCI stated that predatory pricing should have an “anti-competitive objective” of excluding competition or competitors. In other words, the intention behind a pricing strategy is a relevant factor. The authors argue that CCI should consider adding certain factors, including those proposed in this paper, to tighten its grip on a firm that, while not dominant, may impede the market by offering significant discounts to outperform existing competition. In addition, it is necessary to provide a legal definition of penetration pricing and to distinguish it from the idea of predatory pricing. This leads to a very special situation where, under section 4, the law encourages predatory pricing, since the company is not fined until it has proven that it is dominant, which is almost impossible in a competitive market. It is also important to remember that business practices that are not written down may also constitute prohibited minimum speeds. For example, if a manufacturer threatens to stop supplying a retailer if the retailer does not meet the prices desired by the manufacturer, this can also cause serious problems with the minimum speed. Vertical agreements As a general rule, the law is completely neutral with respect to a company`s prices if it is not dominant and does not agree on prices horizontally with its competitors or vertically with entities down the distribution chain. It is vertical agreements, for example between a manufacturer and a retailer, on minimum prices that can be at the centre of the real debate between online and physical stores. The issue of markets manipulating selling prices entered a broader spectrum after the Income Tax Appeal Court in Flipkart India (P) Ltd.

v. CIT recognized that Flipkart engages in predatory pricing and has its affiliation with specific retailers to increase its profits. New entrants offer goods and services at below cost in order to enter and establish themselves in the market. The “Bolton Test”, discussed in MCX Stock Exchange Ltd v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., prescribes two types of below-cost prices: there are two main stages in the life cycle of predatory pricing, one is the victim phase in which the company suffers losses due to falling prices; The second phase is the recovery phase, during which the company compensates for its losses incurred as a result of the price reduction. From the above factors, it is clear that different facets are taken into account when analyzing whether a company engages in predatory pricing or not. The relevant market and the dominant position of the undertaking and the abuse of that dominant position must be identified. Our RCIC law firm has over 30 years of experience in handling legal issues. We have an established practice in competition law and anti-dumping.

In the past, we have provided advice on various competition and anti-dumping law issues. We have dealt with competition law cases before ICC, COMPAT and the Supreme Court. We have a team of specialized lawyers who deal with the practice of competition law. Our goal is to offer cost-effective solutions in the shortest possible time. In the present case, the ICC`s position is problematic in two respects. First, in the case of the platform economy, where there are companies like Amazon, Flipkart, Myntra and Nykaa, there can be no single dominance of a single company.

Share this post