Question
A dominant steel manufacturer imposed a requirement on its distributors to maintain minimum markup percentages and not stock competitors' products. Distributors who violated were threatened with supply suspension. Under Section 4, which statements are correct? Statement 1: Imposing markup requirements on distributors is abuse of dominance. Statement 2: The exclusive stocking requirement is justified for brand protection. Statement 3: Threatening supply suspension for non-compliance with anticompetitive conditions is abuse. Statement 4: The manufacturer must prove legitimate business reasons for these requirements. Which statements are correct?
More Other Laws and Acts Questions
- Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the time spent in prosecuting a proceeding in a court which has no jurisdiction is excluded from the computat...
- Under the PMLA, a person is guilty of money laundering if they are found to have directly or indirectly engaged in which of the following activities connec...
- What is a contingent interest in the context of property transfer according to the Transfer of Property Act?
- Which section exempts certain persons from limitation, such as insane persons or those under legal guardianship?
- Which of the following is not a Directive Principle of State policy as relating to International Peace and Security provided under Article 51 of the Consti...
- As per the Competition Act there shall be constituted a fund to be called the_________________
- Which of the following is not a power granted to the authorities under the PMLA?
- Principles of Natural Justice are:
- Consider the following statements regarding the medical examination of an arrested person under Section 53 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:...
- Parliament consists of
Relevant for Exams:
Hey! Ask a query
Please enter email id
The email must be a valid email address.
Please enter Mobile Number
Please enter valid Mobile Number
Please enter your Doubt
