TEAM NO.

06

COMPETITION LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ORIENTA

Appellate Jurisdiction

Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2021 and No. 42 of 2021

UNDER ARTICLE 32 CONSITITUTION OF ORIENTA

Lareify, Glore Hitch, and PBS Telecommunications………………....…APPELLANT

Vs.

United Tech Connect Enterprises (UTCE)

Comlink Enterprises International (CEI)…….…….………………..…..DEFENDANT

&

Comlink Enterprises International (CEI) …………………..……….….. APPELLANT

Vs
AKK Mobi Ltd,
VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd, and ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd …………..…..…… DEFENDANT

UPON SUBMISSIONS TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES

OF SUPREME COURT OF ORIENTA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 1|Page

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION......................................................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION..........................................................................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................10

ISSUE-I....................................................................................................................................1

ISSUE-II..................................................................................................................................1

ISSUE-III................................................................................................................................1

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................2

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 2|Page

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

Sl. No. Acronyms Detailed

1 CCI Competition Commission of India

2 & And

3 Art. Article

4 Co. Company

5 Ex. Example

6 Govt. Government

7 HC High Court

8 Hon’ble Honourable

9 ILR Indian Law Report

10 CAT Competition Appellate Tribunal

11 LJ Learned Justice

12 Ltd. Limited

13 Ors. Others

14 ¶ Paragraph

15 s./sec. Section

16 § Section

17 SC Supreme Court

18 SCC Supreme Court Cases

19 UOI Union of India

20 v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 3|Page

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED

S.I NO. CASES CITATION

1. CCI v. Bharti Airtel Ltd & Ors(2012) CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 11843
OF 2018
2. Excel Crop Care Ltd v. CCI & Ors (2017) CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2480 of
2014
3. Competition Commission of India (CCI) v. CIVIL APPEAL Nos.6691 OF
Coordination Committee of Artists and Technicians 2014
of West Bengal Film Industry
4.

5.

6.

LEGAL SITES

Sl. No. Name of the website

1 https://www.cci.gov.in/

2 www.manupatra.com

3 www.scconline.in

4 www.livelaw.in

5 www.indiankanoon.org

JOURNALS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 4|Page

Sl. No. Journal

1 Competition Commisiion of India (CCI)

2 Supreme Court Cases (SCC)

3 European Court Reports (ECR)

BOOKS REFERRED

S.I NO. BOOKS REFERRED (CITATION) AUTHOR

Indian Competition Law, 2021 Gautam Shahi,

1. [Shahi G and Kumar S: Indian Competition Law: A Sudhanshu Kumar
Comprehensive Section-Wise Commentary on
Competition Act 2002 (Taxmann Publications 2021)
98, 99]

Competition Law in India , 2013 T. Ramappa

2. [T. Ramappa: Competition Law in India (3rd edn.
Oxford University Press 2013) 156

Avtar Singh's Competition Law 2024 Neha Vyas

3. [Neha Vyas: Avtar Singh's Competition Law (12th edn,
LexisNexis 2024)]

Indian Competition Law Versha Vahini.

4. [Versha Vahini. (2021). Textbook on Indian
Competition Law (1st edn, LexisNexis 2020) 20]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 5|Page

THE RESPONDENT HAS APPROACHED THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT
OF ORIENTIA UNDER SECTION 53T OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002.

The Honorable Supreme Court of Orientia holds jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the
laws and statutes governing competition and consumer protection within the territory of
Orientia. The Court is empowered to adjudicate cases involving allegations of anti-
competitive behavior, abuse of dominant position, predatory pricing, cartelization, and other
related matters under the purview of the Competition Commission of Orientia (CCO). The
jurisdiction of this Court extends to matters concerning the interpretation and application of
relevant statutes, including the Orientian Companies Act and other applicable legislation
pertaining to competition law. As such, the Court possesses the authority to hear and decide
upon the issues presented in this case, ensuring the fair and just resolution of disputes in
accordance with the principles of equity, justice, and the rule of law.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 6|Page

1. United Tech Connect Enterprises (UTCE) is a legally incorporated entity in the Sovereign
Republic of Zentoria, specializing in the production and distribution of cutting-edge mobile
devices, electronic gadgets, and telecommunication services. UTCE operates within the
statutory framework of Zentoria, holding a substantial 65% market share in the Zentorian
market.

2. Comlink Enterprises International (CEI) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UTCE,

strategically positioned in Orienta and operating in compliance with the local regulatory
framework, particularly the Orientan Companies Act. CEI has achieved significant success in
the Orientan market, securing a 40% market share in telecommunication services.

3. Surya Connect Networks Limited (SCNL), a key player in the telecom services sector in
Orienta, experienced financial losses and a decline in market share from 20% to 15% due to
management changes and aggressive decision-making. In response to its declining market
position, SCNL initiated discussions with UTCE/CEI regarding a potential merger, aiming to
leverage UTCE/CEI's market presence and strategic capabilities.

5. CEI announced a strategic marketing move offering complimentary telecom services for
18 months upon the purchase of Chaplus Smart Mobiles, manufactured exclusively by CEI,
aimed at expanding its market presence in Orienta.

6. Following the successful merger and the introduction of the complimentary service offer,
CEI experienced significant growth, capturing 65% of telecom subscribers and 49% of the
mobile manufacturing market share in Orienta.

7. Competitors, including Lareify, Glore Hitch, PBS Telecommunications, AKK Mobi Ltd,
VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd, and ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd, responded to CEI's market dominance
with various strategies, including offering lower prices and exclusive discounts on their
products and services.

8. Legal disputes arose between CEI and its competitors, with allegations of abuse of
dominant position, predatory pricing, cartelization, and anti-competitive behavior being
raised and subsequently brought before the Competition Commission of Orientia (CCO) for
adjudication.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 7|Page

9. The Competition Commission of Orientia consolidated the cases and issued a unified
order, granting approval to some complaints while dismissing others, setting the stage for
further legal proceedings before the Supreme Court of Orientia.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 8|Page

 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

ISSUE-I

WHETHER THERE IS ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION AND

PREDATORY PRICING BY UTCE/CEI

ISSUE-II

WHETHER AKK MOBI LTD, VVNR CELTEC PVT. LTD, AND ADS
TECHLIFE PVT LTD ENGAGED IN CARTELIZATION AND ANTI-
COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR

ISSUE-III

WHETHER THERE IS AN MARKET MONOPOLIZATION BY

UTCE/CEI AND POTENTIAL CONSUMER HARM

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 9|Page

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE-I

WHETHER THERE IS ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION AND PREDATORY

PRICING BY UTCE/CEI?

The prosecution alleges abuse of dominant position and predatory pricing by UTCE/CEI.
However, there is insufficient evidence to support these claims. UTCE/CEI's market
dominance may be attributed to legitimate business strategies, and their pricing practices do
not constitute predatory behavior but rather competitive pricing within the market.

ISSUE-II

WHETHER AKK MOBI LTD, VVNR CELTEC PVT. LTD, AND ADS TECHLIFE
PVT LTD ENGAGED IN CARTELIZATION AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE
BEHAVIOR?
We argue that AKK Mobi Ltd, VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd, and ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd did not
engage in cartelization or anti-competitive behavior. Their actions, such as offering exclusive
discounts, are standard business practices aimed at attracting consumers. There is no concrete
evidence to support the allegations of collusion or manipulation of market prices. The
defendants operated within legal and ethical boundaries, and the burden of proof lies with the
prosecution to substantiate their claims. Thus, the accusations lack merit and should be
dismissed.
ISSUE-III

WHETHER THERE IS AN MARKET MONOPOLIZATION BY UTCE/CEI AND

POTENTIAL CONSUMER HARM?
There is no evidence of market monopolization by UTCE/CEI or potential consumer harm.
Market dominance achieved through legitimate means does not constitute monopolization.
UTCE/CEI's success is attributed to innovation and consumer satisfaction rather than anti-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 10 | P a g e

competitive practices. Allegations of consumer harm are speculative and unsupported by
factual evidence. The defendants' actions aim to enhance consumer welfare through
innovation and competitive pricing, not to the detriment of consumers. Therefore, the
allegations of market monopolization and potential consumer harm should be rejected.
ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE-I

WHETHER THERE IS ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION AND PREDATORY

PRICING BY UTCE/CEI?

The defendant, United Tech Connect Enterprises (UTCE) and its subsidiary Comlink
Enterprises International (CEI), presents the following cohesive arguments to the Court in
response to the issues raised:
According to the Competition Commission of Orientia (CCO), UTCE/CEI's acts are
legitimate competition and strategic business practices rather than abuses of dominant
position or predatory pricing. While operating within the law, UTCE/CEI aspires to provide
top-notch goods and services in a cutthroat industry. The success of UTCE/CEI, which has
substantial market shares in Orienta for both telecom services (65%) and mobile
manufacturing (49%) is attributable to fair competition and consumer preference, which is
fueled by innovation, quality, and customer happiness (paragraph 9). Furthermore,
UTCE/CEI's dedication to market expansion within legal bounds is demonstrated by the
merger with SCNL.
In order to draw in new clients and launch Chaplus phones into the market, UTCE/CEI ran a
limited-time marketing campaign called "bundled offer," which included free telecom
services when Chaplus phones were purchased (paragraph 8). This approach neither suggests
a long-term price cut nor prevents rivals from using their own marketing plans. The brief
price cut offered during the campaign is a valid business strategy to encourage customer
interaction rather than predatory pricing.

Furthermore, as a result of UTCE/CEI's initiatives, there is now more competition in the

Orientan market, which benefits customers by lowering costs and improving service
possibilities (paragraph 11). This reflects UTCE/CEI's dedication to promoting a healthy
competitive environment and is in line with the interests of the general public.
Upon closer inspection, the plaintiff's claims of predatory pricing and misuse of dominant

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 11 | P a g e

position turn out to be mostly unfounded. As demonstrated in the case of CCI v. Bharti
Airtel Ltd & Ors (2012), 1where the Competition Commission of India found that
unambiguous proof of anti-competitive action or harm to customers is necessary to establish
abuse, mere market dominance does not constitute abuse. Competitive tactics used by
UTCE/CEI, such as providing free telecom services, are meant to promote market expansion
and consumer welfare, not to limit competition.

Finally, the defendant asks the court to reject the accusations of predatory pricing and abuse
of dominant position made against UTCE/CEI, claiming the plaintiff's claims are baseless.
These activities support healthy competition, comply with the law, and are advantageous to
both customers and the market at large.

1
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/
2017/40072/40072_2017_Judgement_05-Dec-2018.pdf

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 12 | P a g e

 ISSUE-II

WHETHER AKK MOBI LTD, VVNR CELTEC PVT. LTD, AND ADS TECHLIFE
PVT LTD ENGAGED IN CARTELIZATION AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE
BEHAVIOR?

The defendant fiercely disputes the charges of anti-competitive behavior and cartelization
brought against AKK Mobi Ltd., VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd., and ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd.,
claiming that there is insufficient evidence to support these allegations. Additionally, the
defendant claims that there is no proof of a concerted attempt to undermine consumer welfare
or impede competition. The foundation of the defendant's position is the idea that the plaintiff
has the burden of proof and that it is irrational to assume the presence of cartelization or anti-
competitive action in the absence of verifiable proof of conspiratorial or anti-competitive
agreements.

When analyzing the plaintiff's case, it is critical to highlight the legal concept of the burden of
proof. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to provide reliable proof to back up their claims.
Nevertheless, in this particular case, the plaintiff has not been able to present any hard
evidence of collusion or anti-competitive agreements amongst the parties involved. It is
speculative to assume that cartelization or anti-competitive behavior exists in the absence of
concrete proof.

Additionally, the defendant contends that the goal of the accused parties' cooperation was to
promote healthy competition and assist customers by providing them with innovative
products at competitive prices. This is consistent with the basic principles of free market
competition, in which companies frequently work together to increase productivity and
provide customers better value propositions. These kinds of partnerships can result in
economies of scale, innovation, and eventually better consumer outcomes.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 13 | P a g e

The case of Excel Crop Care Ltd v. CCI & Ors (2017) 2provides relevant legal precedent in
support of this viewpoint. The Competition Appellate Tribunal stressed the significance of
substantive evidence in proving anti-competitive conduct. In this instance, the accusations
against the defendant were dropped due to a lack of hard proof. Similar to this, in this
instance, punishing the accused parties based only on speculation or guesswork in the lack of
substantial evidence would be unfair.
The defendant's stance emphasizes how hard evidence must be shown in order to prove
allegations of anti-competitive behavior. Sanctions on companies cannot be justified by mere
suspicion or conjecture. The defendant argues that the accusations against AKK Mobi Ltd.,
VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd., and ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd. lack credibility and fail to prove any
misconduct on their side in the absence of substantial proof.

In addition, the defendant contends that the collective interests of the accused parties benefit
from the accused parties' cooperation. These businesses may create cutting-edge goods and
services, increase operational effectiveness, and ultimately provide customers with more
value by combining their resources and skills. These kinds of cooperative endeavors are
typical in markets that are competitive and are frequently motivated by the goal of improving
customer welfare as opposed to suppressing competition.

The defense disputes the plaintiff's allegations' believability in addition to the lack of hard
evidence. Anti-competitive behavior and cartelization usually entail coordinated attempts to
distort markets, limit output, or manipulate pricing in a way that hurts consumers and
competition. The defendant contends, however, that there is no proof that AKK Mobi Ltd.,
VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd., and ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd. were involved in these kinds of activities.
The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the activities of the accused persons were
intended to increase competition and benefit customers.

The defendant also emphasizes the business justification for joint ventures and strategic
alliances in markets with intense competition. Companies frequently look to form
partnerships in order to take use of complementary skills and resources in order to
accomplish shared goals. It would be irrational to interpret such collaborations as proof of
anti-competitive activity in the absence of any contrary evidence.

2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156507507/

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 14 | P a g e

The defendant requests that the charges against AKK Mobi Ltd., VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd., and
ADS Techlife Pvt Ltd. be dropped in light of these considerations. The defendant argues that
there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges and that there is no misbehavior on
the part of the defendants. To penalize the accused parties in the absence of credible proof of
cartelization or anti-competitive behavior would be unfair. In deciding cases of this kind, the
defendant highlights how crucial it is to follow the rules of evidence and due process.

In summary, the burden of proof, free market competition, and substantial evidence are the
foundations of the defendant's refutation of the charges of cartelization and anti-competitive
behavior. The defendant contends that it would be illogical to assume the presence of anti-
competitive behavior in the absence of reliable evidence to back up the accusations. In
addition, the defendant argues that the collective efforts of the parties involved benefit
consumers and the market as a whole. In light of the absence of factual support and inability
to prove any misconduct on the part of AKK Mobi Ltd., VVNR Celtec Pvt. Ltd., and ADS
Techlife Pvt Ltd., the defendant asks the court to dismiss the claims against them.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 15 | P a g e

 ISSUE-III

WHETHER THERE IS AN MARKET MONOPOLIZATION BY UTCE/CEI AND

POTENTIAL CONSUMER HARM?

The main thrust of the plaintiff's case is that UTCE/CEI is allegedly monopolizing the market
and may be harming consumers.
But this reasoning is weak, and it offers no empirical evidence to back up its assertions.
In order to comprehend why these accusations might not be credible, it is imperative to exami
ne the subtleties of market dynamics and competition.
First off, the idea of market monopolization suggests that a single company has a sizable shar
e of the market, which would restrict competition and maybe hurt customers.
But in UTCE/CEI, the plaintiff's reasoning ignores the existence of multiple competitors in th
e market providing comparable products and services.
The competitive landscape indicates that consumers have viable options to choose from, indic
ating that UTCE/CEI does not enjoy a monopoly.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) v. Coordination Committee of Artists and

Technicians of West Bengal Film Industry is a pertinent legal precedent that fits this
situation. In this instance, the Coordination Committee was charged by the CCI of engaging
in monopolistic actions in the film business. Nevertheless, the court rejected these claims for
want of hard proof. Similar to this, the plaintiff's position in UTCE/CEI is devoid of actual
evidence to support allegations of market monopolization.

Moreover, the plaintiff's claim disregards the potential advantages for consumers that come
with UTCE/CEI's availability on the market. In contrast to the idea of harm, UTCE/CEI's
operations may help consumers by offering more options, innovative solutions, and
competitive pricing. To improve consumer welfare, for example, UTCE/CEI's activities may

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 16 | P a g e

result in the launch of new goods or services. This is in line with the fundamentals of
competition law, which support market competition and innovation in order to advance
consumer welfare.

The defendant contends that the court ought to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of market
monopolization and possible injury to consumers in view of these factors. The plaintiff's case
is based more on conjecture than on empirical data, according to the defendant, who also
maintains that there is insufficient proof to substantiate these claims.

Furthermore, according to the defendant, there is no preliminary evidence of predatory

pricing, misuse of a dominant position, cartelization, anti-competitive behavior, or market
monopolization based on the plaintiff's claims. These are grave accusations that need to be
supported by a lot of evidence. It would be unreasonable to hold UTCE/CEI accountable or
impose sanctions in the absence of such proof.

Comparing the court's decision in CCI v. Coordination Committee of Artists and

Technicians of West Bengal Film Industry 3to the present case, the defendant contends that
the plaintiff's accusations against UTCE/CEI should be rejected in their entirety. The
defendant asks the court to reject the CCI's allegations in this case, just as it did with the last
one because there was insufficient proof.

In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claims of market

monopolization and consumer harm resulting from UTCE/CEI. The plaintiff's arguments are
undermined by the industry's competitive landscape and the possible benefits for consumers.
Moreover, the plaintiff's case is weakened by the lack of hard evidence to support claims of
market monopolization or anti-competitive behavior. Consequently, in line with previous
court decisions, the defendant requests that the plaintiff's claims against UTCE/CEI be
dismissed in their entirety.

3
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118036852/

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 17 | P a g e

 PRAYER

In court documents, the defendant, United Tech Connect Enterprises (UTCE) and its
subsidiary Comlink Enterprises International (CEI), hereby submits the following prayer:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendant respectfully prays for the following
relief:

1. That this Honorable Court, in its wisdom and discretion, dismisses the plaintiff's
claims in their entirety for lack of substantive evidence and failure to establish a
prima facie case against UTCE/CEI.

2. That the Court upholds the principles of fair competition, consumer welfare, and
market efficiency, ensuring the continued adherence to legal standards and the
preservation of a competitive telecommunications market in Orienta.

3. That the Court's deliberations are guided by justice, impartiality, and a steadfast
commitment to upholding the rights and interests of all parties involved.

4. That the defendant be granted any further relief, remedy, or protection deemed just
and equitable by the Court.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully

submitted

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 18 | P a g e

 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT 19 | P a g e