Print View

[Section Index]

The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970

( Ordinance NO. V OF 1970 )

Chapter II

UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER, ETC., PROHIBITED

Circumstances constituting unreasonable monopoly power
5. (1) Unreasonable monopoly power shall be deemed to have been brought about, maintained and continued if-
 
 
 
 
(a) there has been created or maintained any such relationship between two or more undertakings as makes them associated undertakings where they are competitors in the same market and together produce, supply, distribute or provide not less than twenty per cent of the total goods or services in such market;
 
 
 
 
(b) there has been any acquisition by one person or undertaking of the stock or assets of any other person or undertaking, or any merger of undertakings, where the effect of the acquisition or merger is likely to create monopoly power or to substantially lessen competition in any market, including any acquisition which creates any such relationship as is referred to in clause (a);
 
 
 
 
(c) any loan is granted by a bank or insurance company to any of the associated undertakings of amounts greater or on terms more favourable than for loans made available to other undertakings in comparable situations, or any loan is granted by a bank or insurance company to a person or undertaking not associated with it on the condition or understanding that the borrower or any of its associated undertakings will make any loan to a person or undertaking associated with the lender.
 
 
 
 
(2) No such relationship, acquisition, merger or loan as is referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have the effect of bringing about, maintaining or continuing unreasonable monopoly power if it is shown-
 
 
 
 
(a) that it contributes substantially to the efficiency of the production or distribution of goods or of the provision of services or to the promotion of technical progress or export of goods;
 
 
 
 
(b) that such efficiency or promotion could not reasonably have been achieved by means less restrictive of competition; and
 
 
 
 
(c) that the benefits of such efficiency or promotion clearly outweigh the adverse effect of the absence or lessening of competition.

Copyright © 2019, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division
Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs