Difference between MRTP Act 1969 and Competition Act 2002

Difference between MRTP Act   1969 and Competition Act 2002

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act, 1969 was revoked and replaced by Competition Act, 2002. MRTP Act was enacted to deal with monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices, but due to certain limitations, Competition Act was introduced, which changed the focus from curbing monopolies to promoting competition.

APPLICATION SEEKING RELEASE OF JAMATALASHI ARTICLES BEHALF OF APPLICANT, FORMAT

S.No

 


MRTP Act, 1969

Competition Act, 2002
1.
MRTP Act, is the first competition law made in India, which covers rules and regulations relating to unfair trade practices.
Competition
Act, is implemented to promote and keep up competition in the economy and
ensure freedom of business.
2
It is based on the pre liberalisation and globalisation era.
It is based on the post-reforms scenario.
3
The objective of the Act is to prevent concentration of economic power to common
detriment to control of monopolies, prevention of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices.
The objective of the Act is prevent practices having adverse effect on
competition and to promote as well as sustaining the competition to protect
consumer interests at market place and ensuring freedom of trade.
4
Determined by firm’s size.
Determined by firm’s structure.
5
It lists out 14 offences, which are against the principle of natural justice.
It recognizes only 4 offences, which are deemed to be against the principle of
natural justice.
6
MRTP Commission has the power to pass only “Cease” and
“Desist” orders.
The Competition Act can pass an order to prevent and punish such of those
activities, which abuses competition.
7
No penalty for offense
Offenses are penalized
8
The MRTP Act did not provide for the formation of fund for its activities.
The Competition Act provides competition fund for promotion of competition
advocacy and creation of awareness about competitive issues and training as
may be prescribed in its rules.
9
Entity having status of dominant position is itself considered as bad.
Entity having status of dominant position is not considered as bad. Whereas abuse of dominant position affecting consumer interest is considered as immoral.

 

10
The chairman of MRTP Commission was appointed by Central Government.
The chairman of the commission will be appointed by a committee consisting of
retired judiciary, person having professional expertise in various fields of
trade commerce, industry, finance etc.

 

11
Focussed on consumer interest at large.
The chairman of the commission will be appointed by a committee consisting of
retired judiciary, person having professional expertise in various fields of
trade commerce, industry, finance etc.