Summary of issue 1 Appellant side

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble tribunal that FSAs have not violated the provisions

of section 3(3) read with section 3(1) of the Competition Act,2002. Firstly the APPAs signed

does not fall under the conditions of being anti-competitive under section 3(3) read with 3(1)

as APPAs is for the consumer’s benefit and legally valid. APPAs has no controlling or

limiting effect on production, price and investment. Secondly, the Appas has no appreciable

adverse effect on the competition because it does not satisfy the condition for agreement

having AAEC on market under section 19 of the Act.

Summary of issue 4 Appellant side

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble tribunal that the VAR is form of cartel were exsist

an agreement between the restaurants who were signatories to the VAR and intentional

collusion is seen. Circumstantial evidene also leads to the fact that indicates presence of

cartel

And prior meeting of mind and data sharing took place and as result similarity in market

strategies are observed. Economic evidences is indicative of price parallelism. Agreement

between the members of VAR is anti competitive and has AAEC on market andthe

presumption that agreement is anti competitive cannot be rebutted.

Summary of issue 4 Respondant side

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble tribunal that VAR has not indulged in formation of

cartel as firstly there is no agreement between the restaurants, nature of the market and

interdependency among the competitors, nature of the market and interdependency among the
competitors, price parallelism is not unusual and Sharing of data and information leads to

economic benefits and secondly, the conduct of the members of the VAR is not anti-

competitive as is does not cause Appreciable adverse effect on comppetition.