Inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise
Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 deals with inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise. The Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its own motion or on-- (a) [receipt of any information, in such manner and] accompanied by such fee as may be determined by regulations, fro The Act came into force on 31 Mar 2003.
(1) The Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 3 or sub-section (1) of section 4 either on its own motion or on--
(a) 1[receipt of any information, in such manner and] accompanied by such fee as may be determined by regulations, from any person, consumer or their association or trade association; or
(b) a reference made to it by the Central Government or a State Government or a statutory authority.
2[Provided that the Commission shall not entertain an information or a reference unless it is filed within three years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen:
Provided further that an information or a reference may be entertained after the period specified in the first proviso if the Commission is satisfied that there had been sufficient cause for not filing the information or the reference within such period after recording its reasons for condoning such delay.]
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the powers and functions of the Commission shall include the powers and functions specified in sub-sections (3) to (7).
(3) The Commission shall, while determining whether an agreement has an appreciable adverse effect on competition under section 3, have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:--
(a) creation of barriers to new entrants in the market;
(b) driving existing competitors out of the market;
(c) foreclosure of competition 3***;
(d) 4[benefits or harm] to consumers;
(e) improvements in production or distribution of goods or provision of services;
(f) promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services.
(4) The Commission shall, while inquiring whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position or not under section 4, have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:--
(a) market share of the enterprise;
(b) size and resources of the enterprise;
(c) size and importance of the competitors;
(d) economic power of the enterprise including commercial advantages over competitors;
(e) vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or service network of such enterprises;
(f) dependence of consumers on the enterprise;
(g) monopoly or dominant position whether acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue of being a Government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise;
(h) entry barriers including barriers such as regulatory barriers, financial risk, high capital cost of entry, marketing entry barriers, technical entry barriers, economies of scale, high cost of substitutable goods or service for consumers;
(i) countervailing buying power;
(j) market structure and size of market;
(k) social obligations and social costs;
(l) relative advantage, by way of the contribution to the economic development, by the enterprise enjoying a dominant position having or likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition;
(m) any other factor which the Commission may consider relevant for the inquiry.
(5) For determining whether a market constitutes a "relevant market" for the purposes of this Act, the Commission shall have due regard to the "relevant geographic market" and "relevant product market".
(6) The Commission shall, while determining the "relevant geographic market", have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:--
(a) regulatory trade barriers;
(b) local specification requirements;
(c) national procurement policies;
(d) adequate distribution facilities;
(e) transport costs;
(f) language;
(g) consumer preferences;
(h) need for secure or regular supplies or rapid after-sales services.
5[(i) characteristics of goods or nature of services;
(j) costs associated with switching supply or demand to other areas.]
(7) The Commission shall, while determining the "relevant product market", have due regard to all or any of the following factors, namely:--
(a) physical characteristics or end-use of goods 5[or the nature of services];
(b) price of goods or service;
(c) consumer preferences;
(d) exclusion of in-house production;
(e) existence of specialised producers;
(f) classification of industrial products.
5(g) costs associated with switching demand or supply to other goods or services;
(h) categories of customers.]
Section 19, The Competition Act, 2002 (Act 12 of 2003).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
CCI is an expert body. Director General investigation under s.26, inquiry under s.19, and CCI's duties under s.18 are part of a specialised scheme; s.61 excludes civil-court jurisdiction over the same subject. COMPAT's interference with a CCI direction to investigate was set aside. Single labelled Judgment of Main Case (order-1.pdf, 2010-09-09).
On this section: Inquiry into agreements / dominance under s.19 is the Commission's statutory trigger for DG investigation.
-
B. Himmatlal Agrawal Partner vs Competent Commission of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance with a condition attached to an interim stay order. While the stay can be vacated for non-compliance of the deposit condition, the statutory right to appeal under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002, cannot be taken away by imposing a condition of deposit as a prerequisite to entertaining the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 53B(3) of the Act. The Tribunal, being a creature of statute, has no jurisdiction to impose conditions that effectively bar the hearing of an appeal.
On this section: Cited in the CCI notice as the basis for initiating investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices; provides CCI's power to inquire into alleged contraventions
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Court: - 18) Against the order passed by the CCI directing investigation into the aforesaid allegations, in the writ petitions filed by the IDOs and also by COAI, challenge laid to the aforesaid order was premised on the ground that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to entertain such complaints/information filed under Section 19 of the Competition Act as such a matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of another regulatory authority, namely, TRAI. - 19) In nutshell, it was pleaded that the violation alleged by RJIL, namely, whether there was a delay or denial in provisioning POIs, comes within the domain of TRAI as it is the TRAI …
-
… Court: - 18) Against the order passed by the CCI directing investigation into the aforesaid allegations, in the writ petitions filed by the IDOs and also by COAI, challenge laid to the aforesaid order was premised on the ground that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to entertain such complaints/information filed under Section 19 of the Competition Act as such a matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of another regulatory authority, namely, TRAI. - 19) In nutshell, it was pleaded that the violation alleged by RJIL, namely, whether there was a delay or denial in provisioning POIs, comes within the domain of TRAI as it is the TRAI …
-
… Court: - 18) Against the order passed by the CCI directing investigation into the aforesaid allegations, in the writ petitions filed by the IDOs and also by COAI, challenge laid to the aforesaid order was premised on the ground that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to entertain such complaints/information filed under Section 19 of the Competition Act as such a matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of another regulatory authority, namely, TRAI. - 19) In nutshell, it was pleaded that the violation alleged by RJIL, namely, whether there was a delay or denial in provisioning POIs, comes within the domain of TRAI as it is the TRAI …
Made under this section, and citing it
3 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 19
What have the courts held on Section 19 of the Competition Act?
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (09 Sep 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Inquiry into agreements / dominance under s.19 is the Commission's statutory trigger for DG investigation. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 19 of the Competition Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Competition Act 19, section 19 Competition Act, section 19 of the Competition Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (09 Sep 2010).
What should I read with Section 19 of the Competition Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Anti-competitive agreements), section 4 (Abuse of dominant position), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 3 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently CCI (General) Amendment Regulations, 2009 (No. 5 of 2009) (2009), then CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 (No 2 of 2009) (2009).
When did Section 19 of the Competition Act come into force?
Section 19 of the Competition Act, cited as Competition Act 19, came into force on 31 Mar 2003, having been enacted on 13 Jan 2003. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 66. Repeal and saving1683 words
- 2. Definitions1390 words
- 5. Combination1317 words
- 6. Regulation of combinations920 words
- 3. Anti-competitive agreements850 words
- 26. Procedure for inquiry under section 19788 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.