<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3AIndia_%28July_1991%29</id>
	<title>Talk:India (July 1991) - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3AIndia_%28July_1991%29"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Talk:India_(July_1991)&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-04-22T20:06:07Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.6</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Talk:India_(July_1991)&amp;diff=348&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>AchalOza: New page:  == India 1991 Public Interest Def. ==  This statute seems to allows a public interest defense.  However, it applies to &quot;monopolistic trade practices&quot; and not to explicitly to merger asses...</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Talk:India_(July_1991)&amp;diff=348&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2007-06-26T16:53:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;New page:  == India 1991 Public Interest Def. ==  This statute seems to allows a public interest defense.  However, it applies to &amp;quot;monopolistic trade practices&amp;quot; and not to explicitly to merger asses...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== India 1991 Public Interest Def. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This statute seems to allows a public interest defense.  However, it applies to &amp;quot;monopolistic trade practices&amp;quot; and not to explicitly to merger assessment, do you think it counts?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
32. MONOPOLISTIC TRADE PRACTICE TO BE DEEMED TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the purposes of this Act, every monopolistic trade practice shall be deemed to be prejudicial to the public interest, except where -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(a) such trade practice is expressly authorised by any enactment for the time being in force, or&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(b) the Central Government, being satisfied that any such trade practice is necessary -&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;to meet the requirements of the defence of India or any part thereof, or for the security of the State;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii) to ensure the maintenance of supply of goods and services essential to the community; or&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(iii) to give effect to the terms of any agreement to which the Central Government is a party,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
by a written order, permits the owner of any undertaking to carry on any such trade practice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Talked to Hylton, said to code it as &amp;quot;Dominance - Efficiency Defense&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 10:35, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== India 1991 Divestures ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I talked to Hylton about this one and said it does count as a divesture.  I&amp;#039;m just posting it here for the sake of consistency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
36D(1)(b) - &amp;quot;any agreement relating to such unfair trade practice shall be void or shall stand modified in respect thereof in such manner as may be specified in the order;&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:58, 25 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>AchalOza</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>