In India, non-competitive agreements are guaranteed under Section 3 (3) of the Competition Act 2002. In substance, this can be considered the agreement denounced under the “rule per se.” This is reflected in the way in which Section 3, paragraph 3, deals with interpretations considered anti-competitive. With regard to non-competitive agreements, the assessment of sensitivity is of a very important nature and cannot be overlooked. The buyer has an honest enthusiasm for the previous law to protect preferential profits due to such a supply. A comprehensive analysis of all market conditions and the factors surrounding an agreement is tedious and costly. In particular, in its socony-Vacuum decision of 1940, the Supreme Court held that certain behaviours, such as price-fixing, unduly restrict competition by nature and are therefore prohibited in and of themselves.  Under these provisions, the Court`s review of the evidence ceases as soon as it finds that a contract or agreement falls into a pre-defined category of illegality. Such a contract or agreement is considered anti-competitive and is therefore prohibited under Section 1. While the rules are in themselves an extremely useful instrument that helps to save time and resources, the Supreme Court has set a fairly high standard for the definition of such rules, the “considerable experience of the nature of the contentious deference” and “demonstrable economic benefits instead of … “Formalist line drawing.”  Business practices considered illegal under antitrust legislation include: (a) horizontal pricing agreements, b) horizontal contracting agreements, (c) supply manipulations between competitors; (d) some horizontal group boycotts by competitors; and (e) sometimes binding agreements. The accompanying horizontal agreements are often considered anti-competitive21: Raghavan`s board of trustees says: “Horizontal agreements are considered illegal only if there is a chance of irrational rivalries.
In light of U.S. law, what is being tried on the so-called “rule of reason.” Similarly, it is necessary that the parties to the agreement be employed by intercom rivalry exercises. A potential opponent is an opponent who might be able to participate in the same type of activity. 19 The Chamber has provided a clear overview of the agreements that must be subject to the “rule of reason” 20: nevertheless, it remains necessary for the ECJ to interpret the prohibition of agreements under Article 101 “which have a purpose … Preventing competition. As noted above, the Court of Justice has the power to establish general principles of law in response to a referral from a Member State.