Question

discuss the changing dimension of the mrtp and its impect on business

Answer 1

Answer:

trade practice under the MRTP Act, 1969

The Monopolist and Restricted Trade Practices Act, 1969, was enacted

1. To ensure that there is no concentration of economic power in the hands of some people as a result of the operation of the economic system,

2. For control of monopoly, and

3. To restrict monopolist and restricted business practices.

The MRTP Act is spread all over India, except Jammu and Kashmir.

Unless the Central Government directs otherwise, this Act will not apply to:

1. Any enterprise owned or controlled by the government company,

2. Any enterprise owned or controlled by the Government,

3. Any company owned or controlled by a corporation (is not a company established under or under any Central, Provincial or State Act,

4. In the form of such tradesmen or employees, any trade union or other organization of workers or employees has formed for their proper security,

5. Any enterprise undertaken in any industry, whose management has been removed by individuals or any person under the powers of the Central Government,

6. Owned venture owned by a co-operative society formed and registered under any Central, Provincial or State Act,

7. No financial institution.

The Committee has recommended the transfer of all cases pending with unfair trade practices along with the MRTP Commission, on which the MRTP Act is being implemented, the Consumer Protection Commission, who overlaps the jurisdiction on such matters. The impression is that the unfair trade practices do not distort the competition and have adverse effects on their own consumers alone.

Issues to consider

Although there can be no differences on the need to facilitate the competition, the perceptions may differ on the measures that may be favorable to them. For instance, Indian companies can not serve the consumer interests in India's domestic market as essential for making teeth on foreign markets. The larger the Indian providers of goods and services, they will be better in their conflicts with the multinational giants abroad. But as Michael E. Porter sees the quote with which the report of the committee begins, it is a paradox that lasting competitive advantages in the global economy lie fast in local things - knowledge, relationships and inspiration which do not match the rivals far away. ''