The Supreme Court interpreted it “as a presumption and not as evidence itself,” but only as an indicative value of the burden of proof. In addition, vertical agreements relating to activities under Section 3, paragraph 4 of the Competition Act must be analysed in accordasing the case analysis rule under the Competition Act. Again, on the basis of a preliminary review of the terms of the agreement in question and its effects within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act, the Commission ordered the DG to conduct further investigations. Facts – In this case, TELCO entered into an agreement with its dealers, in which dealers are assigned certain fixed areas where they were to sell Tata`s vehicles. This territorial restriction has been called into question as a “restrictive commercial practice”. Although restrictive business practices were considered by the MRTP Commission to be a violation of the MRTP law, they were taken into account by the Supreme Court in the TELCO// case. Registrar of RT Agreement[4] that in all cases where it is an agreement made by the RTP, the rule of the application of wisdom should be. The TELCO decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on the basis of similar decisions of the United States Supreme Court, which declared the application of the review of reasons in Continental TV v. GTE Sylvania. [5] Hero – Although the term “cartel” was not defined by the MRTP Act, it was stipulated that “the agreement is an association of manufacturers who, through an agreement between them, attempt to control the production, sale and price of the product in order to obtain a monopoly in a particular industry or commodity.” Although there is not enough evidence to make someone liable in this particular case, the case was dismissed. However, this case has highlighted an important category of anti-competitive agreements that have not yet been identified in India. The accompanying horizontal agreements are often considered anti-competitive21: horizontal agreements will be an agreement between at least two companies in a similar phase of the production chain that are in a similar market16.

The best illustration that can illustrate this type of agreement is that of two suppliers who are founding similar positions in similar markets, and the two positions must replace each other. In a similar phase of the production chain, it is concluded that the parties to the agreement are (all) producers, retailers or wholesalers.