This paper finds that, unlike in other cases, the Competition Commission of India did not examine the possible benefits of resale price maintenance in increasing the sale of cars.
Shilpi Bhattacharya, Professor Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Aditi Khemani, Associate at at law firm in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
The Competition Commission of India’s landmark order in the Hyundai case on resale price maintenance is analysed in light of the CCI’s broader decisional practice on RPM. It finds that, unlike in other cases, the CCI did not examine the possible benefits of RPM in increasing the sale of cars.
In effect, the CCI presumed that the very existence of the discount control measure was unlawful, without the need to assess competitive effects. The Hyundai case is used to highlight the inconsistencies in the CCI’s decisional practice on RPM.
Published in: Economic and Political Weekly
To read the full article, please click here.