After receiving the complaint, the ICC found that channel 10 stopped broadcasting the series directly due to pressure from both bodies and that prima facie found that its actions were anti-competitive. The ICC has instructed the Director General (« DG ») to carry out a detailed study in accordance with Article 26 of the Act. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that the common sense rule would apply in cases of agreements that constitute rtp violations. The concept of resale prices was examined by the Commission in Fx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v Hyundai Motor India Limited4. In that case, the informant had stated that, in accordance with the agreement concluded with Hyundai, dealers were required to obtain supplies only from Hyundai or through their sellers. During the cooperation on Hyundai`s alleged anti-competitive practices, the informant stated that Hyundai had put in place a « discount control mechanism » in which dealers could only grant a maximum discount and dealers were not allowed to grant discounts beyond a recommended area, which amounts to « resale price fixing » in violation of section 3(4)(e) of the Act. In this dispute between the parties, the interpretation of Article 3(4) of the Law on competition was brought before the courts. The information contained in this case was disclosed to CIL and its subsidiaries for violation of Section 4 of the Act, pursuant to Section 19(1)(a) of the Act of two state-owned power generation companies in Maharashtra and Gujarat. They claimed that op was dominant on the relevant market and abused that dominant position mainly by the conditions laid down in the fuel supply contracts. In Shri Shamsher Kataria v.
Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Ors3, the concept of vertical agreements, including exclusive supply agreements, exclusive distribution agreements and refusal of transactions, was examined by the Commission. It can be considered an exception, since its creation is in the MRTP law. In such cases, the ICC considers whether, in these cases, substantive law should be considered provisional by the MRTP Act or the law before proceeding. . . .