"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2016J3_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eCOMPETITION LAWS IN PAKISTAN \u0026amp; EU*\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eOratier\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2016-12-24T09:22:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2016-12-24T09:22:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e4200\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e23943\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e199\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e56\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e28087\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eCOMPETITION LAWS IN PAKISTAN \u0026amp; EU\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eMr. Justice (R.) Qazi Khalid Ali\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eI\r\nhave been asked to speak on the \u0026quot;Competition Laws in Pakistan \u0026amp;\r\nE.U\u0026quot;. This topic does not occupy purely a juridical field. Its inter-face\r\nwith economics and sociology is paramount.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2. \u003cu\u003eConceptual Paradox\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eBefore\r\nI proceed to discuss the contemporary competition laws of our country a\r\nconceptual paradox is required to be understood in its true perspective.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\na purely capitalistic set-up the market forces are allowed to operate freely\r\nwithout any pertinent checks. This is what the economists call a \u0026quot;perfect\r\ncompetition\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;laissez faire\u0026quot; economy. The idea is that there\r\nare no checks on the stakeholders, and the economy is principally unplanned or\r\nunregulated. However, the economists confirm that even in as competition there\r\ncomes a point when certain factors hinder a \u0026quot;laissez faire\u0026quot; state of\r\naffairs; and unless and until those factors are checked by statutory or\r\nexecutive regulation, a \u0026quot;laissez faire\u0026quot; state cannot prevail. The\r\ngreat economist Paul A. Samuelson, as quoted by S.M. Dugar in his book\r\n\u0026quot;Commentary on MRTP Law Competition Law and Consumer Protection Law\u0026quot;\r\n(2006, 4th Edition, Vol.I), confirms this in the following words:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;By\r\nlaissez faire one does not automatically get perfect competition. To reduce\r\nimperfections of competition, a nation must struggle perpetually and must ever\r\nmaintain its vigilance.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThis\r\nmeans that a monopolistic situation can deter free competition or a\r\n\u0026quot;laissez faire\u0026quot; state. Therefore, to create a better level playing\r\nfield for free competition the state is called upon to legislate \u0027competition\u0027,\r\n\u0027antimonopoly\u0027 or \u0027anti-trust\u0027 (as known in the USA) laws. Sometimes the raison\r\nde etre for the promulgation of competition laws is to the desire create a welfare\r\nstate so as to hamper the concentration of wealth into a few hands.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.3\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eWhile\r\nin practice it makes no difference as to whether the competition laws are\r\nbrought about with the objective to create a laissez faire economy or whether\r\nthe intention is to create a welfare state, the basic objective behind such a\r\nlegislation can, however, be important to gauge the national fabric of the\r\nsociety.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.4\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nmy opinion any anti-monopoly or competition law can validly function within the\r\ndispensation prescribed by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Article 18 of\r\nthe Constitution protects the right to enter into lawful profession, occupation\r\nor conduct any lawful trade or business, however, as per Article 18(b) nothing\r\nshall prevent \u0026quot;the regulation of trade, commerce or industry in the\r\ninterest of free competition therein.\u0026quot; Again Article 38 of our\r\nConstitution provides that the state shall, inter alia, prevent \u0026quot;the\r\nconcentration of wealth and means of production and distribution in the hands\r\nof a few to the detriment of general interest \u0026quot; Articles 18 and 38 of our\r\nConstitution reflect the same paradox which is at the heart of the economic\r\ndebate in introducing competition laws i.e. Article 18 of the Constitution\r\nprescribes regulation so as to provide a better and free competition in\r\nbusiness, whereas Article 38(a) of the Constitution provides for taking steps\r\nwhich would hamper concentration of wealth into a few hands.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e2.5\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eI\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eleave\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eparadox\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eresolved\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eby\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eour\r\npolicy\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eor\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003elaw-makers!\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003eHistory\r\nof Competition Laws in Pakistan\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eOn\r\n18th April, 1947 the Government of United India promulgated the Capital Issues\r\n(Continuance of Control) Act, 1947. This Act\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eadapted\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e14.8.1947 by Pakistan upon independence. The idea behind this statute\r\nwas to regulate the issuance of capital with a view to control accumulation of\r\nwealth in a few hands. In order to relax the control the legislature\r\nsubsequently promulgated the Capital Issues (Exemption) Order, 1967 with a view\r\nto exempt certain entities from the vigours of the Capital Issues (Continuance\r\nof Control) Act, 1947. But the basis of the formal anti-monopoly laws in\r\nPakistan is the budget speech of the then Finance Minister for the fiscal year\r\n1963-64, when for the first time in Pakistan he announced the intention of the\r\nlegislature to promulgate \u0026quot;anti-monopoly laws\u0026quot;. For such purpose an\r\n\u0026quot;Anti Cartel Law Study Group\u0026quot; was brought about, which prescribed the\r\ndraft of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and\r\nPrevention) Ordinance 1969. The said draft was published in the Gazette of\r\nPakistan on 28.6.1969 for the purposes of eliciting public opinion. After\r\nconsideration the comments received from the public, industry, financial\r\ninstitutions and academics on 26.2.1970 the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade\r\nPractices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 (hereafter: \u0026quot;the 1970\r\nOrdinance\u0026quot;) was promulgated. This law was enforced on 17.8.1971, on which\r\ndate the Federal Government also constituted the Monopoly Control Authority\r\nVide SRO 315(I)/1971 dated 17.8.1971. Soon after the appointment of the\r\nAuthority, rules regarding the procedure, fees and other matters for carrying\r\nout the purposes of law were notified in the gazette on 31.12.1971. These rules\r\nwere termed as the Monopoly Control Authority Rules, 1971, Rule 10 of the said\r\nRules provided that undertakings, individuals and agreements which attracted\r\nthe provisions of the registration were asked to get themselves registered with\r\nthe Authority by 15.1.1972 or within 15 days of the date when such undertakings,\r\nindividuals or agreements became registrable under law.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eBetween\r\n1972 and 1977 the major industries of the country were nationalized in view of\r\nthis shift in the economic policy to regulate the economy and discourage\r\nprivate ownership. Thus the 1970 Ordinance was not put into much application.\r\nHowever, post 1977 the government again encouraged private enterprises as a\r\nresult of which there has been both legislative amendments to and court cases\r\narising out of the 1970 Ordinance.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.3\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nfundamental approach of the 1970 Ordinance was to expressly prohibit\r\nunreasonable growth in the following situations:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eundue\r\nconcentration of economic power;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eunreasonable\r\nmonopoly power;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eunreasonable\r\nrestricted trade practices.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e(See\r\nPLD 2008 Karachi 583 titled \u003cu\u003eExide Pakistan Ltd. v. Malik Abdul Wadood\u003c/u\u003e,\r\nauthored by Speaker for High Court of Sindh as he then was a Judge)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.4\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\n1970 Ordinance did not per se prohibit the above three situations, as was\r\nprescribed in the American Anti-Trust Laws (see \u0026quot;Competition in British\r\nIndustry\u0026quot; by Swaun, Brien, Maunder and Howe, 1974). Instead the 1970\r\nOrdinance stipulated a case to case approach and under\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eit\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eeach\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esituation\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewas\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eadjudged\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eits\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eown\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emerits\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethrough the\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003etest\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ereasonableness.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eanti-monopoly law as prescribed through the\r\n1970 Ordinance in Pakistan was largely based upon the British\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elegal\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esystem\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas it prevailed then. In\r\nthe British system, prevalent from the 1960s to the 1980s no practice was\r\nregarded as illegal or even presumed contrary to the public interest (see\r\n\u0026quot;The Law of Restrictive Trade Practices and Monopolies\u0026quot; by Lord\r\nWillverforce, Allan and Neil, 1966).\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e3.5\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAs\r\nstated above, after 1977 there has been a plethora of case law developed by the\r\nPakistani courts with regards the 1970 Ordinance. In \u003cu\u003eHaji Ismail Dossa v.\r\nMonopoly Control Authority\u003c/u\u003e PLD 1984 Karachi 315 a learned Single Judge of\r\nthe Sindh High Court was pleased to observe that the 1970 Ordinance was an\r\neconomic legislation intended to create an economic system which would not\r\nresult in the concentration of economic power, monopolization and create\r\nunreasonably restricted trade practice. Writing for the Court, Saleem Akhtar J,\r\nas he then was, observed as follows:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;From\r\nits very nature the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and\r\nPrevention) Ordinance, 1970 imposes restrictions on trade, commerce and\r\nbusiness. The object of the Ordinance is to prevent concentration of wealth in\r\nthe hands of a few and to curb monopolistic and expansionist tendencies in\r\ntrade, commerce, industry and business. It prohibits undue concentration of\r\neconomic power, unreasonable monopoly power and eliminate unreasonably\r\nrestrictive trade practices from the market. It also discourages such trade\r\npractices which prevent, restrain or lessen competition. The Ordinance is\r\ndesigned to restrict and prohibit. In public interest, dealings, agreements,\r\narrangements and practices which create monopoly and economic power and\r\nunreasonably control the business, undertaking and market. These economic evils\r\nas specified in the Ordinance have been considered detrimental to public\r\ninterest therefore, the Ordinance has provided measures to regulate, check or\r\neliminate them.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eIn re: Islamization of Law\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e PLD 1985 FSC 193 a full bench of the Federal\r\nShariat Court was pleased to observe that the objects of the 1970 Ordinance\r\nadvanced the objectives of Sharia. It was observed that the main object of the\r\n1970 Ordinance was to ensure that the wealthy did not become wealthier and the\r\npoor did not get poorer in view of the entities acquiring monopoly in their\r\nrespective fields and increasing prices so as to control market and restrict\r\nsupplies. Reference is also invited to a judgment of the Division Bench of the\r\nSindh High Court reported as \u003cu\u003eHabib Bank Limited v. Monopoly Control\r\nAuthority\u003c/u\u003e 1986 CLC 2489. In this decision it was observed that the aims of\r\nthe 1970 Ordinance was to break the monopolies and avoid concentration of\r\neconomic power. It was held that one of the modes of avoiding undue concentration\r\nof economic power was to break or at least weaken such associations which were\r\ncommonly managed but had semblance of separate entities. Right from the\r\ninception till date we have seen in Pakistan that the economic power or\r\nconcentration of wealth has been in the hands of the few. During the days of\r\nAyub Khan it was a known fact that the entire concentration of wealth was in\r\nthe hands of 22 families of Pakistan. In \u003cu\u003eRafan Maize Product Company Limited\r\nv. Monopoly Control Authority\u003c/u\u003e PLD 1986 Lahore 346 it was recognized that\r\nthe objectives of the 1970 Ordinance was to, inter alia, distribute the\r\neconomic power which was concentrated in the hands of individual and their\r\nfamilies. It was further observed that the idea behind the law was to eliminate\r\nsuch narrow family oriented attitudes of the entrepreneurs and the subsequent\r\nestablishment of professional management to control enterprises, which are in\r\nturn managed and controlled by big business family groups. In \u003cu\u003eSanaullah\r\nWoollen Mills v. Monopoly Control Authority\u003c/u\u003e PLD 1987 SC 202 the Supreme\r\nCourt of Pakistan expounded the criteria to judge \u0026quot;concentration of\r\neconomic power.\u0026quot; It was held that the magnitude of the undertaking had a\r\ndirect nexus with \u0026quot;concentration of economic power\u0026quot;. The manner in\r\nwhich the 1970 Ordinance prescribed norms and actions is very ably analyzed in\r\na judgment of the Lahore High Court reported as \u003cu\u003ePakistan Industrial\r\nPromotors Limited v. Monopoly Control Authority\u003c/u\u003e 1990 CLC 1008; a relevant\r\nexcerpt from the judgment of Abdul Majeed Tiwana J, as then he was, is\r\nunderscored for convenience as follows:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;7.\r\nThe purpose of the Ordinance is stated in section 3 thereof which prohibits\r\nundue concentration of economic power, unreasonable monopoly power, and\r\nunreasonably restrictive trade practices because these factors give rise to\r\nuneven distribution of wealth amongst different sections of society, ultimately\r\nleading to unrest, strife and conflict amongst them, thereby regarding economic\r\ngrowth and impairing its general welfare. To achieve this object the Ordinance\r\ncreates a body known as Monopoly Control Authority which administers this law\r\nand in that context exercises many power and performs various functions. The\r\nfirst step in this direction is the collection of necessary information and\r\ndata from those engaged in business and commerce in the private sector and that\r\nis done through the process of registration as embodied in section 16 of the\r\nOrdinance and the rules made thereunder. After completing this step, the\r\nAuthority begins the process of inquiry and if it prima facie finds that the\r\nprovisions of section 3 ibid have been or are likely to be contravened it\r\npasses an order under section 12 after following the procedure laid down in\r\nsection 11 and keeping in view the guidelines given in sections 4, 5 and 6 of\r\nthe Ordinance. Section 19 thereof empowers the Authority to impose penalty if\r\nits order is not complied with or any person or undertaking does not himself or\r\nitself registered under the Ordinance. In nutshell this is the scheme of the\r\nOrdinance\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn \u003cu\u003eArshad\r\nMehmood v. Government of Pakistan\u003c/u\u003e PLD 2005 SC 193 the Supreme Court of\r\nPakistan found a franchise to be a privileged contract aimed at creating a\r\nmonopoly and popularly known as a \u0026quot;CARTEL\u0026quot;. This judgment also lays\r\ndown tests as to how reasonableness of restriction with regards the fundamental\r\nright pertaining to freedom of trade, business or profession has to be\r\nadjudged.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e4.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003eThe\r\nCompetition Ordinance, 2007\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e4.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nCompetition Ordinance, 2007 (hereafter: \u0026quot;the 2007 Ordinance\u0026quot;)\r\n(reported in PLJ 2008 Federal Statutes 292 = 2008 CLD Statute 281) was\r\npromulgated on 2nd of October, 2007. Vide section 59(a) the 2007 Ordinance\r\nrepealed the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and\r\nPrevention) Ordinance, 1970. The said 2007 Ordinance came into force on the\r\ndate of its promulgation mentioned above. The 2007 Ordinance was repealed by\r\nthe section 61 of the Competition Act, 2010, which was published in the Gazette\r\nof Pakistan, Extraordinary\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ePart\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eI\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edated 13-10-2010 from pages 645 to 677 (PLD 2010 Federal Statute\r\n(Supplement, 724) (Hereafter Act XIX of 2010). This law has made a clear\r\ndeparture from the standards which were prescribed in the 1970 Ordinance. As\r\nmentioned above, under the 1970 Ordinance every action was tested on the touch-stone\r\nof reasonableness. In striking contrast under the 2007 Ordinance and Act XIX of\r\n2010 clear standards are provided as to what would be permissible and what\r\nwould be impermissible. As such, in term of providing legal certainty the Act\r\nXIX of 2010 is a definite improvement.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003eThe\r\nCompetition Act, 2010 (Act XIX of 2010)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eUnder\r\nsection 3 of the Act XIX of 2010, no person shall abuse \u0026quot;dominant\r\nposition\u0026quot; [see section 3(1)]. In turn it has been provided that\r\n\u0026quot;dominant position\u0026quot; shall be deemed to have been brought about if\r\nthere are \u0026quot;practices\u0026quot; which prevent, restrict, reduce or distort\r\ncompetition in the \u0026quot; relevant market \u0026quot; [see section 3(2)]. Section\r\n3(3) defines that the expression \u0026quot;practices \u0026quot; shall include and not\r\nbe limited to the following situations:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elimiting\r\nproduction , sales and unreasonable increase in prices or other unfair trading\r\nconditions;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eprice\r\ndiscrimination by charging different prices for the same goods or services from\r\ndifferent customers in the absence of objective justifications that may justify\r\ndifferent prices;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003etie-ins,\r\nwhere the sale of goods or services is made conditional on the purchase of\r\nother goods or services;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(d)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003emaking\r\nthe conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of\r\nsupplementary obligations which by their nature or according to commercial\r\nusage , have no connection with the subject of the contracts;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(e)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eapplying\r\ndissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions on other parties , placing\r\nthem at a competitive disadvantages;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(f)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003epredatory\r\npricing driving competitors out of a market, prevent new entry , and monopolize\r\nthe market;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(g)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eboycotting\r\nor excluding any other undertaking from the production, distribution of sale of\r\nany goods or the provision of any service; or\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(h)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003erefusing\r\nto deal.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nterm \u0026quot; dominant position \u0026quot; has been defined in section 2(e) as follows:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;2(e)\r\n\u003cb\u003e\u0027dominant position\u0027\u003c/b\u003e of one undertaking or several undertakings in a\r\nrelevant market shall be deemed to exist if such undertaking or undertakings\r\nhave the ability to behave to an appreciable extent independently of\r\ncompetitors, customers, consumers and suppliers and the position of an\r\nundertaking shall be presumed to be dominant if its share of the relevant\r\nmarket exceeds forty percent. \u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eApart\r\nfrom the abuse of dominant position the Act XIX of 2010 prohibits the execution\r\nof certain agreements in section 4. According to section 4(1) of the Act XIX of\r\n2010 an undertaking and associations of undertaking are prohibited from\r\nentering into any agreement calculated to be a decision in respect of the\r\nproduction, supply, distribution, acquisition or control of goods or the\r\nprovision of services, which have the object or effect of preventing ,\r\nrestricting or reducing competition within the relevant market , unless\r\nexempted under section 5 of the Act XIX of 2010 . Again section 4(2) provides\r\nthat the prohibited agreement shall include and not be limited to the\r\nfollowing:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efixing\r\nthe purchase or selling price or imposing any other restrictive trading\r\nconditions with regard to the sale of distribution of any goods or the\r\nprovision of any services;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003edividing\r\nor sharing of markets for goods or services, whether by territories, by volume\r\nof sales or purchases, by type of goods or services sold or by any other means;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003efixing\r\nor setting the quantity of production, distribution or sale with regard to any\r\ngoods or the manner or means of providing any services;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(d)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003elimiting\r\ntechnical development or investment with regard to the production, distribution\r\nor sale of any goods or the provision of any service, or\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(e)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ecollusive\r\ntendering or bidding for sale, purchase or procurement of any goods or service;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(f)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eapplying\r\ndissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties,\r\nthereby placing them at a disadvantage; and\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(g)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003emake the\r\nconclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of\r\nsupplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial\r\nusage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.3\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIt\r\nis clearly provided in section 4(3) of the Act XIX of 2010 that any agreement\r\nin violation of section 4 of the Act XIX of 2010 shall be void.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.4\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAn\r\nimportant feature of section 3(3) and section 4(2) of the Act XIX of 2010 is\r\nthat the definitions of \u0026quot;practices\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;prohibited\r\nagreements\u0026quot; are not exhaustive, the two definitions being inclusive. This\r\nis an important aspect of the statute since the law-makers cannot possibly\r\nforesee and add to these lists all the possible eventualities, therefore the\r\ntwo lists have been left flexible.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.5\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nstatute provides for individual exemption from the Act XIX of 2010 which can be\r\ngranted by the Commission under section 5 and for block exemption from the\r\noperation of the Act XIX of 2010 in section 7 thereof.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.6\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eVery\r\nimportantly the Act XIX of 2010 in section 10 denounces deceptive marketing\r\npractices. In other words, the law regarding misrepresentation has been\r\nreiterated.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.7\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eAn\r\nimportant feature of the Act XIX of 2010 in section 11 thereof which clearly\r\nprovides that no undertaking shall enter into a merger which substantially\r\nlessens competition by creating or strengthening dominant position in the\r\nrelevant market. The term \u0026quot;relevant market\u0026quot; has been defined in\r\nsection 2(k) of the Act XIX of 2010 in terms of both a \u0026quot;product\r\nmarket\u0026quot; and a \u0026quot;geographic market\u0026quot;.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.8\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eFor\r\nthe purposes of monitoring the Act XIX of 2010 the said statute provides for\r\nthe establishment of a Commission which is to comprise not less than 5 and not\r\nmore than 7 members, while the government is given the power to increase or\r\ndecrease such membership. The members of the Commission are appointed by the\r\nFederal government for a complete term; not more than 2 members of the\r\nCommission shall be from the federal government. This is to ensure that the\r\nCommission is represented by persons from the private sector as well.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.9\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nCommission has been made financially independent by creation of a fund so as to\r\nmeet the charges and its expenses including salaries of its members and staff.\r\nThe Commission is required to keep proper accounts and shall be subject to\r\naudit and has to file an annual report.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.10\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\r\nUnder section 33 of the Act XIX of 2010 the Commission is given the same power\r\nas a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1988) and the\r\nproceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the manner of the\r\nPakistan Panel Code (Act XLV of 1860) and the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (Act\r\nV of 1898). The Commission has the power to enter and search premises, force\r\nentry, call information and undertake enquiries and studies.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.11\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\r\nThe hallmark of the Act XIX of 2010 is provided in section 29 which caters to\r\npromote awareness. The Commission is empowered to impose penalties in case of\r\ncontravention under section 30, while under section 31 it has powers to issue\r\norders which fall under the following broad categories:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ein case\r\nof abuse dominant position the undertaking can be required to take certain\r\nsteps so as to restore competition;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ein case\r\nof prohibited agreements the Commission can either annul the agreement or\r\nrequire the undertaking concerned to amend the agreement;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ein case\r\nof deceptive marketing practices the Commission can confiscate, forfeit or\r\ndestroy the property or product or the guilty party can be directed to restore\r\nthe previous market position;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.5pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e(d)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003ein case\r\nof merger it can either authorize them, unconditionally or conditionally or\r\nreview them.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.12\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\r\nUnder section 32 the Commission has the power to grant interim orders. Section\r\n38 of the Act XIX of 2010 allows the Commission to impose penalties whereas\r\nunder section 39 the Commission can afford leniency.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.13\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\r\nAn order of a single member of the Commission is appealable before the\r\nAppellate Bench (section 41), while an order of two or more members of the\r\nCommission or the Appellate Bench, as the case may be is appealable before the\r\nCompetition Appellate Tribunal.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e5.14\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e            \u003c/span\u003e\r\nAn order of Competition Appellate Tribunal, is appealable before the Supreme\r\nCourt under 44 of the Act XIX of 2010.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003eSelected\r\nForeign Competition Regimes:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nAmerican Sherman Act, 1890 is reckoned to be started point of modern\r\ncompetition or antitrust laws. Senator Sherman of the USA himself recognized\r\nthat the American Sherman Act, 1890 was based in part on the Constitution of\r\nZeno, Emperor of the East from 474 to 491 AD. According to Mark Furste in\r\n\u0026quot;Competition Law of the EC and UK\u0026quot; Sixth, Edition, 2008, this is not\r\na correct statement. According to him the Roman Legislation dealt with\r\nanti-monopoly laws even some 500 years before the Constitution of Zeno.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eBe\r\nthat as it may, at the time of Magna Carta, 1215 legislation provided that all\r\nmonopolies were contrary to the law as they had a bearing on individual\r\nfreedoms. In modern times the two contemporary statutes which govern\r\ncompetition laws in the UK are the Competition Act, 1998 and the Enterprise\r\nAct, 2002.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.3\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eArticles\r\n81 and 82 of the European Treaty provide for the control of anti-competitive\r\nagreements scheme and dominant firm abuses.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:9.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.4\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nIndia the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 had principally\r\nprovided a similar anti -monopoly regime which was provided under our 1970\r\nOrdinance. In India the antimonopoly law was brought about in view of\r\nrecommendations given by the Monopolies Inquiry Commission which was set up by\r\nthe Government of India in 1964. The Indian anti-monopoly law was principally\r\nbased upon the UK legislation in particular the Restrictive Trade Practices\r\nAct, 1956, the Resale Prices Act, 1964 and the UK Fair Trading Act, 1973.\r\nAnti-Trust Legislation in USA notably the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and the\r\nFederal Trade Commission Act, as also the Australian and Canadian legislation\r\non the subject have also been a guide in framing the Indian legislation (see\r\nS.M. Dugar, cited as above at page 1)\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.5\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eEU\r\nCOMPLETION LAW\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eTogether\r\nwith its public services, the Europe Union\u0027s market economy, which competition\r\nlaw aims to protect from unfair trade practices and private monopolization\r\ngenerates GBP 14.303 trillion in 2013.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e6.6\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eEuropean\r\ncompetition law promotes the maintenance of competition with the European Union\r\nby regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not\r\ncreate Cartels and monopolies that would damage the interest of society. With a\r\nhistory that traces back to the prohibition on the restraint of trade, and\r\ninfluenced by the experience of the United States Sherman Act, 1890, and the\r\nClayton Act, 1914, European Competition law today derives mostly from Articles\r\n101 to 109 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, as well as\r\nseries of Regulations and Directives. Four main policy areas include:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003ea.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eCartels,\r\nor control of collusion and other anti-competitive practices under Article 101\r\nof the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. (TFEU).\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eb.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eMarket\r\ndominance, or preventing the abuse of firm\u0027s dominant market position under\r\nArticle 102 TFEU.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003ec.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e     \u003c/span\u003eMergers,\r\ncontrol of proposed mergers acquisitions and joint ventures involving companies\r\nthat have a certain, defined amount turnover in the EU, according to the merger\r\nregulation.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003ed.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eState\r\naid, control of direct and in-direct aid given by members states of the\r\nEuropean Unions to the Companies under TFEU Article 107.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:11.0pt;\r\nmargin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.3in;mso-pagination:none;\r\ntab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThis\r\nlast point is a unique characteristic of the European Union Competition Law\r\nregime. As the European Union is made up of independent member\u0027s states, both\r\ncompetition Policy and creation of the European Single market could be rendered\r\nineffective, were member states free to support national Companies as they saw\r\nfit. A 2013 Civitas report list some of the artifices used by participants to\r\nthe state aid rules on procurement. Primary authority for applying Competition\r\nLaw within European Union rests with European Commission and its Directorate\r\nGeneral for Competition, although state aids in some sectors, such as\r\ntransport, are handled by other Directorate General. The Directorates can\r\nmandate that improperly given state aid be repaid, as was case in 2012 with\r\nMalev Hungarion Airlines.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e7.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u003cu\u003eCorporate\r\nVeil\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e7.1\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\ndiscussions will not be complete unless something is also said\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eabout\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003econcept\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;veil\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eincorporation\u0026quot;\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ecompany law.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eOne\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eimportant\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003easpects\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eany\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecompetition\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003elaw\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eexplore\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewhether\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethere\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eexists\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efit\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecase for\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epiercing\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe veil incorporation.\r\nIn the classical pronouncement of \u003cu\u003eSalomon v. Salomon case\u003c/u\u003e (1897) AC 22\r\nit was held that a company is an entity distinct from its members. This concept\r\nfound in English Company Law is very much recognized in Pakistan. The Courts in\r\nPakistan following the English Law have also expounded tests as to when the\r\ncorporate veil would be pierced. In \u003cu\u003eUnion Council v. Associated Cement\r\n(Pvt.) Ltd\u003c/u\u003e. 1993 SCMR 468 the Supreme Court of Pakistan found that in\r\ncertain events the veil of incorporation could be lifted. One of such instances\r\nwas fraud. Earlier, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the \u003cu\u003ePresident v.\r\nJustice Shoukat Ali\u003c/u\u003e PLD 1971 SC 585 was pleased to pierce the veil of\r\nincorporation so as to determine the true relationship of the share-holders\r\nwith the company.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e7.2\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\ntopic under discussion is very wide. The time available with us is not enough\r\nto cover every aspect in detail. However, atleast through the present opening\r\nclass of students of School of Economics and Law, London and invaluable\r\ncontributions made by Mr. Toaha Qureshi Member of British Empire (MBE)\r\nPrincipal of the School of Economics and Law, London and Mr. Umer Qureshi\r\nDirector Academic School of Economics and Law, London. I am pleased to note\r\nthat the area of study under discussion has been much enriched. However, I hope\r\nthat in future more seminars and studies are undertaken not only in the field\r\nof competition laws but also in other laws of EU, USA and Pakistan.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:11.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e8.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e    \u003c/span\u003eI\r\nwould like to express my sense of gratitude for the kind cooperation of Mr.\r\nToaha Qureshi and Mr. Umer Qureshi for admitting our 5 faculty members in their\r\nPGD program leading to LL.M in Commercial Law and Granting Exemption in 3\r\nsubjects. I have no adequate words to thank you Mr. Toaha Qureshi and Mr. Umer\r\nQureshi for their kind support for the faculty development program of SZABU\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"