Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment Over Inadequate Implementation of RPwD Act, 2016  ||  24,000 Teaching and Non-Teaching Jobs Invalidated by Calcutta High Court  ||  24,000 Teaching and Non-Teaching Jobs Invalidated by Calcutta High Court  ||  Del. HC: For Purposes of Article 19(6) of COI National Council for Teacher Education is ‘State’  ||  Karnataka High Court: Smoking Hookah as Addictive and Harmful as Smoking Cigarettes  ||  All. HC: Interest Can’t be Awarded by Labour Court In Proc. for Money Recovery from Empl. u/s 33C(2)  ||  All. HC: Rs. 5 Lakh Cost Imposed on CWC for Sending Minor Living With Mother to Children’s Home  ||  Ker. HC Issues Guidelines for DNA Testing of Children of Rape Victims Who Are Given in Adoption  ||  SC: Fourteen-Year-Old Rape Survivor Allowed to Terminate Twenty-Eight-Week Pregnancy  ||  SC: Government of Himachal Pradesh Directed to Review its Policies on Child Care Leaves    

In Re: M/s Maruti & Company, Bangalore And Others - (Competition Commission of India) (28 Jul 2016)

Chemists and druggists associations practice of mandating NOC requirement prior to the appointment of stockists held anti-competitive

MANU/CO/0047/2016

MRTP/ Competition Laws

Instant information was filed for alleged contravention by Opposite Parties in denying supply of drugs to Informant for want of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from OP-1. Informant was appointed as a stockist for Diabetes Care Division of OP-4 on 05th June 2013 in Bangalore. However, Informant was allegedly not supplied with drugs against an order placed by it, as it failed to obtain an NOC.

Chemists and druggists associations existing in different regions and states have been unabashedly indulging in the practice of mandating NOC requirement prior to the appointment of stockists. In a fair and competitive market, players should be given an equal and unhindered opportunity and freedom to operate and compete on merits. Chemists and druggists associations have made NOC a mandatory requirement prior to the appointment of stockists by pharmaceutical companies. Requirement to seek NOC is a hindrance that dissuades new/existing stockists to enter/expand in a market and this practice amounts to an entry barrier for the pharmaceutical stockists. Pharmaceutical companies are succumbing to the practice of seeking NOC, in acquiescence with associations. Fact that impugned practice is being followed by the pharmaceutical company at instance of the association makes the pharmaceutical company also culpable for participation in anti-competitive activity. Commission opined that, such practices under the diktat of associations, restrict supply of goods or services in market, thereby distorting forces of fair play.

In instant case, OP-4 might have acted under influence of OP-1 in insisting for NOC prior to commencing supplies to the newly appointed stockist. However, same cannot absolve it from liability under the Act for its anti-competitive arrangement/understanding/coordination. Existence of any such pressure/influence ought to have been reported to Commission. Commission concludes that there was an anti-competitive arrangement/understanding between OP-4 and OP-1 in violation of Section 3(1) of the Act imposed penalty under Section 27 of the Act

Tags : ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICE   PROVISIONS   VIOLATIONS   PENALTY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved