Introduction

Competition is non defined in jurisprudence but is by and large understood to intend the procedure of competition to pull more clients or heighten net income or both. Competition jurisprudence trades with market failures on history of restrictive concern patterns in the market. Restrictive concern patterns can be of many sorts and include inter-alia understandings to curtail competition, cartelization, predatory pricing, tie-in gross revenues, re-sale monetary value care, maltreatment of laterality etc.

The history of competition jurisprudence is normally traced back to the passage of Sherman Act in 1890 in the US. This act was directed against the power and predations of the big trusts formed in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution where a little control group acquired and held the stock of rivals, normally in plus, and controlled their concern. Gradually, competition jurisprudence came to be recognized as one of the cardinal pillars of a market economic system. This acknowledgment led to enactment of competition jurisprudence in many states, including developing states, and the figure now stands at around 105.

Competition is the lifeblood of the market economic system. It spurs invention and higher productiveness taking to accelerated economic growing ; to the consumers it brings the benefit of lower monetary values, wider picks and better merchandises and services.

The value of liberating entrepreneurial energies and leting competition to drive growing has become all the more of import for India to emerge as dominant market participant in universe economic system.

Old jurisprudence on Competition: MRTP Act, 1969

Earlier, MRTP Act, 1969 was the jurisprudence on competition affairs. However, it was enacted during epoch of licences, licenses and controls. Monopoly and dominant place in market was regarded as bad in jurisprudence. The ‘public involvement ‘ and ‘consumer public assistance ‘ were the nucleus rules of competition jurisprudence. The MRTP Commission, the implementing organic structure of the jurisprudence, had merely powers to publish orders directing a respondent to ‘cease and abstain ‘ from the alleged monopolistic, restrictive and unjust trade patterns. The committee did non hold the power to impose punishment for breach of jurisprudence no other punishments could be imposed.

The Act underwent several amendments during the class of its journey boulder clay day of the month. Prominent among them are amendments of 1984 and 1991. In 1984, unjust trade patterns questions were added and in 1991 the chapter covering with amalgamations and merger was deleted.

However, the increasing complexnesss of globalised concern environment took the construct of competition to much elevated degrees. The new age competition and its effects permeated the physical boundaries of states. Technological growing besides added new dimensions to competition issues.

India excessively witnessed these new developments in market competition and realized the attendant insufficiency of extant competition jurisprudence i.e. , MRTP Act, 1969. In the epoch of liberalisation and globalization, the MRTP Act had become disused in certain respects of competition issues. There was a demand to switching focal point from controling monopolies to advancing competition. Consequently a new jurisprudence on competition was promulgated in the name of Competition Act, 2002.

Aim:

The preamble of this act states that this is an act to set up a committee, protect the involvement of the consumers and guarantee freedom of trade in markets in India.

There are some elements or the aims for the act.

  1. To forbid the understandings or patterns that restricts free trading and besides the competition between two concern entities.
  2. To censor the opprobrious state of affairs of the market monopoly.
  3. To supply the chance to the enterpriser for the competition in the market.
  4. To hold the international support and enforcement web across the universe.
  5. To forestall from anti-competition patterns and to advance a just and healthy competition in the market.

Elementss OF COMPETITION LAW

Typically, a modern competition jurisprudence has three major elements:

  1. Anti-competitive understandings
  2. Maltreatment of laterality
  3. Regulation of combinations

Major AREAS IN FOCUS:

1. Anti-Competitive Agreements

Section-3. ( 1 ) No endeavor or association of endeavors or individual or association of individuals shall come in into any understanding in regard of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or proviso of services, which causes or is likely to do an appreciable inauspicious consequence on competition within India.

( 2 ) Any understanding entered into in dispute of the commissariats contained in sub-section ( 1 ) shall be null.

( 3 ) Any understanding entered into between endeavors or associa­tions of endeavors or individuals or associations of individuals or between any individual and endeavor or pattern carried on, or determination taken by, any association of endeavors or association of individuals, including trusts, engaged in indistinguishable or similar trade of goods or proviso of services, which—

( a ) Directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale monetary values ;

( B ) Limits or controls production, supply, markets, techni­cal development, investing or proviso of services ;

( degree Celsius ) Shares the market or beginning of production or proviso of services by manner of allotment of geographical country of market, or type of goods or services, or figure of clients in the market or any other similar manner ;

( vitamin D ) Directly or indirectly consequences in command tackle or collu­sive command,

Shall be presumed to hold an appreciable inauspicious consequence on compe­tition:

Provided that nil contained in this sub-section shall use to any understanding entered into by manner of joint ventures if such understanding additions efficiency in production, supply, distribu­tion, storage, acquisition or control of goods or proviso of services.

Explanation: – & gt ; For the intents of this sub-section, “bid rigging” means any understanding, between endeavors or individuals referred to in sub-section ( 3 ) engaged in indistinguishable or similar production or trading of goods or proviso of services, which has the consequence of extinguishing or cut downing competition for commands or adversely impacting or pull stringsing the procedure for command ;

( 4 ) Any understanding amongst enterprises or individuals at different phases or degrees of the production concatenation in different markets, in regard of production, supply, distribution, storage, sale or monetary value of, or trade in goods or proviso of services, including—

  1. Tie-in agreement ;
  2. Exclusive supply understanding ;
  3. Exclusive distribution understanding ;
  4. Refusal to cover ;
  5. Resale monetary value care,

Shall be an understanding in dispute of sub-section ( 1 ) if such understanding causes or is likely to do an appreciable inauspicious consequence on competition in India.

2. Maltreatment of Laterality

Section-4

( a ) Directly or indirectly, imposes unjust or discriminato­ry: – & gt ;

( I ) Condition in purchase or sale of goods or services

( two ) Monetary value in purchase or sale ( including marauding monetary value ) of goods or service

Explanation: – & gt ; For the intents of this clause, the unfair or prejudiced status in purchase or sale of goods or services referred to in sub-clause

( I ) And unjust or prejudiced monetary value in purchase or sale of goods

( Including marauding monetary value ) or service referred to in sub-clause

( two ) Shall non include such prejudiced conditions or monetary values which may be adopted to run into the competition.

( B ) Limits or restricts: – & gt ;

( I ) Production of goods or proviso of services or market hence

( two ) Technical or scientific development associating to goods or services to the bias of consumers

( degree Celsius ) Indulges in pattern or patterns ensuing in denial of market entree ( in any mode )

( vitamin D ) Makes decision of contracts capable to credence by other parties of auxiliary duties which, by their nature or harmonizing to commercial use, have no connexion with the topic of such contracts ; or

( vitamin E ) Uses its dominant place in one relevant market to come in into, or protect, other relevant market.

3. Regulation of combinations

Section-5. The acquisition of one or more endeavors by one or more individuals or amalgamation or merger of endeavors shall be a combination of such endeavors and individuals or endeavors, if: – & gt ;

( a ) Any acquisition where: – & gt ;

( I ) The parties to the acquisition, being the acquirer and the endeavor, whose control, portions, voting rights or assets have been acquired or are being acquired jointly have: – & gt ;

( A ) Either, in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees three thousand crores

( two ) The group, to which the endeavor whose control, portions, assets or voting rights have been acquired or are being acquired, would belong after the acquisition, jointly have or would jointly hold: – & gt ;

( B ) Either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four 1000 crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores

( B ) Acquiring of control by a individual over an endeavor when such individual has already direct or indirect control over another endeavor engaged in production, distribution or trading of a similar or indistinguishable or substitutable goods or proviso of a similar or indistinguishable or substitutable service, if: – & gt ;

( I ) The endeavor over which control has been acquired along with the endeavor over which the acquirer already has direct or indirect control jointly have: – & gt ;

( A ) Either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees three thousand crores

( two ) The group, to which enterprise whose control has been acquired, or is being acquired, would belong after the acquisition, jointly have or would jointly hold: – & gt ;

( A ) Either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four 1000 crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores

( degree Celsius ) Any amalgamation or merger in which: – & gt ;

( I ) The endeavor staying after amalgamation or the endeavor created as a consequence of the merger, as the instance may be, hold: – & gt ;

( A ) Either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees one thousand crores or turnover more than rupees three thousand crores

( two ) The group, to which the endeavor staying after the amalgamation or the endeavor created as a consequence of the merger, would belong after the amalgamation or the merger, as the instance may be, hold or would hold: – & gt ;

( A ) Either in India, the assets of the value of more than rupees four 1000 crores or turnover more than rupees twelve thousand crores

Redresss in Competition Act.

Section 27 of the Act provides assorted redresss for reconstructing competition and punishing the wrongdoers in instance of dispute of this jurisprudence. They are: – & gt ;

  1. Passing ‘cease and desist order ‘ .
  2. Supplying understandings holding appreciable inauspicious consequence on competition to be null.
  3. Enforcing punishment up to 10 % of the turnover or 3 times of cartelised net income, whichever is higher.
  4. Awarding compensation or amendss as per Section 34.
  5. Directing alterations to understandings.
  6. In instance of combinations, they can be approved with or without alteration or even be refused blessing.
  7. In instance of dominant endeavor, order can urge division as

provided in Section 28 of the Act

MRTP ACT 1969

Introduction

The MRTP Act, 1969 has its generation in the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in the Constitution of India. Clauses ( B ) and ( degree Celsius ) of Article 39 of the Constitution lay down that the State shall direct its policy towards guaranting:

  1. That the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as to outdo serve the common good
  2. That the operation of the economic system does non ensue in the concentration of wealth and agencies of production to the common hurt.

Aims

The chief aims sought to be achieved through the MRTP Act are:

  1. Prevention of concentration of economic power to the common hurt ;
  2. Control of monopolies ;
  3. Prohibition of Monopolistic Trade Practices ( MTP ) ;
  4. Prohibition of Restrictive Trade Practices ( RTP ) ;
  5. Prohibition of Unfair Trade Practices ( UTP ) .

Commissariats Associating to Monopolistic, Restrictive and Unfair Trade Practices

1. Section 10 of the MRTP Act, 1969 empowers the MRTP Commission to ask into monopolistic or restrictive trade patterns upon a mention from the Cardinal Government or upon its ain cognition or on information. The MRTP Act, 1969 besides provides for assignment of a Director General of Investigation and Registration for doing probes for the intent of questions by the MRTP Commission and for care of registry of understandings associating to restrictive trade patterns.

2. The MRTP Commission receives ailments both from registered consumer and trade associations and besides from persons either straight or through assorted Government Departments. Ailments sing Restrictive Trade Practices or Unfair Trade Practices from an association are required to be referred to the Director General of Investigation and Registration for carry oning preliminary probe in footings of Sections 11 and 36C of the MRTP Act, 1969 and Regulation 119 of the MRTP Commission Regulations, 1974. The Commission can besides order a preliminary probe by the Director General of Investigation and Registration when a mention on a restrictive trade pattern is received from the Central/ State Government, or when Commission ‘s ain cognition warrants a preliminary probe. Questions are instituted by the Commission under relevant Sections of the MRTP Act, 1969 after the Director General of Investigation and Registration has completed the preliminary probe and as a consequence of the findings, submits an application to the Commission for an question.

Monopolistic Trade Practices

Five questions under Section 10 ( B ) were pending with the MRTP Commission at the beginning of the twelvemonth 2005, while no fresh enquiry was instituted during the period April, 2005- December, 2005. All the 5 questions were pending as on 31.12.2005.

Restrictive Trade Practices

Under Section 10 ( a ) ( I )

293 questions, including 267 brought frontward from the old twelvemonth, were considered during April 2005-December 2005 of which 48 questions were disposed of during the said period and the staying 245 questions were pending with the Commission as on 31st December 2005.

Under Section 10 ( a ) ( two )

Neither any question was non brought frontward from the old twelvemonth nor was any question instituted under this Section during the twelvemonth.

Under Section 10 ( a ) ( three )

39 questions including 37 brought frontward from the old twelvemonth were taken up by the Commission during April 2005 to December 2005. One question was disposed of during the period and the staying 38 were pending with the Commission as on 31st December 2005.

Under Section 10 ( a ) ( IV )

58 questions were brought frontward from the old twelvemonth and 3 fresh questions were instituted by the Commission during the twelvemonth from April 2005 to December 2005. 6 questions were disposed of during the said period and 55 questions were pending with the Commission as on 31stDecember 2005.

Unfair Trade Practices

Commissariats associating to Unfair Trade Practices were incorporated in the MRTP Act, 1969 in 1984. Unfair Trade Practices have been defined in Section 36A as trade patterns which for the intent of advancing the sale, usage or supply of any goods or for proviso of any services, follow one or more of the patterns mentioned in this and thereby do loss or hurt to the consumers of such goods or services, whether by extinguishing or curtailing competition or otherwise.

Under Section 36B ( a )

491 questions including 410 questions brought frontward from the old twelvemonth were considered by the Commission during April, 2005 – December 2005. Of these, 54 questions were disposed of and the staying 437 questions were pending as on 31st December 2005.

Under Section 36B ( B )

Neither any enquiry under Section 36B ( B ) of the MRTP Act, 1984 was initiated nor any question was brought frontward during April, 2005- December, 2005.

Under Section 36B ( degree Celsius )

1 enquiry brought frontward from the old twelvemonth before the Commission is still pending as on 31.12.2005.

Under Section 36B ( vitamin D )

176 questions, including 169 brought frontward from the old twelvemonth, were taken up by the Commission during April, 2005 – December 2005. Eight questions were disposed of and 168 questions were pending with the Commission as on 31st December 2005.

Impermanent Injunctions

Besides 143 applications pending under Section 12A with the MRTP Commission as on 1st April, 2005, 43 applications were received by the Commission during the period April, 2005 – December 2005. Out of 186 applications, 55 were disposed of and the staying 131 applications were pending under Section 12A with the Commission as on 31st December, 2005.

Award of Compensation

During the period April, 2005 – December 2005, 1341 applications under Section 12B including 1264 applications brought frontward from the old twelvemonth were considered by the Commission. Of these, 126 applications were disposed of by the Commission during the period and the staying 1215 applications were pending as on 31st December, 2005

Registration of Agreements

  1. Section 35 of the MRTP Act, 1969 requires every understanding associating to Restrictive Trade Practices falling within one or more of the classs enumerated in Section 33 ( 1 ) of the Act to be furnished for enrollment within 60 yearss of the devising of such understanding.
  2. In pursuit of this proviso, during the period April, 2005 to December 2005, 7 understandings were received for enrollment. The same were registered and entered in the Register of Agreements.
  3. A entire figure of 39,993 understandings were filed up to the terminal of 31st December, 2005, by assorted projects. Out of these, specifics of 39,116 understandings were entered in the Register of Agreements.

Probe by Director General ( Investigation & A ; Registration )

Probe

The Director General is required to carry on preliminary probe in regard of restrictive, monopolistic and unjust trade patterns as and when an order of preliminary probe is received from the MRTP Commission. As on 1.4.2005, one probe was in advancement. During the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005, 49 fresh orders of preliminary probes were received. Out of 50 probes, Preliminary Investigation Report was submitted in 11 instances and 39 probes were pending at the terminal of the twelvemonth. Besides, the Director General has suo motto powers to originate preliminary probes into monopolistic, restrictive and unjust trade patterns, and in instance any of these trade patterns are detected during such probe, the Director General is empowered to register applications under Sections 10 ( a ) ( three ) / 10 ( B ) /36B ( hundred ) of the Act for induction of enquiry proceedings by the MRTP Commission. As a consequence of such suo Moto probes, 5 applications were filed under Section 36B ( degree Celsius ) along with 4 applications under Section 12A of the Act for interim injunction

during the period 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005. In add-on, 3 applications were filed under Section 10 ( a ) ( three ) of the Act for question into restrictive trade patterns during the said period. Thus, a sum of 12 applications have been filed during the period 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005.

Consumer Protection

Of late, consumer protection motion has been brushing across the whole state. The consumers have been organizing themselves into consumer organic structures all over the state to safeguard the populace and consumers ‘ involvement against unjust trade patterns being indulged in by parties through misdirecting advertizements, bargain-sales, administration of sale publicity competitions, selling goods which do non conform to criterions of safety etc. An independent Chapter sing unjust trade patterns was inserted in the MRTP Act in 1984 and the consumers are taking full benefit of the commissariats contained in this Chapter by registering ailments in this office. Facility of speedy redressal of their grudges is provided by this office. During the period April, 2005 to December, 2005, this office has handled every bit many as 123 ailments received from consumers and other parties including 22 brought frontward from the old twelvemonth. Of these, 64 ailments were disposed of during the period and 59 ailments were pending as on 31.12.05.

Failure of the MRTP Act and the reforms of the 1890ss

However, the MRTP Act was unable to present as expected – partially because of the built-in failings in its ain construction and the composing of the MRTP Commission, and partially due to the fact that the properties of competition ( entry, monetary value, graduated table, location etc ) were regulated by a separate set of policies. Although the state did witness industrial growing and variegation during this period, the complex web of controls and ordinances fettered the freedom of endeavors. Administrative holds and rent seeking chances spawned an inefficient industrial construction, which was beset with jobs of sub-optimal graduated tables of operation, capacity under-utilization, deficiency of technological up step and high degrees of industry concentration.

The Industrial Policy Statement of 1980 focussed attending on the demand for advancing competition in the domestic market, technological up step and modernisation. Far-reaching alterations were made by the MRTP ( Amendment ) Act, 1991. The Reforms covered a wide spectrum such as farther liberalisation of industrial licensing distributing with the demand of anterior authorities blessing before impacting enlargement by projects, registered under the MRTP Act, 1969 increasingly thining the monopoly of the populace sector industries, except where security and strategic concerns still dominate, abolishment of levy and non-levy monetary value system, and cut downing purchase penchant for public sector endeavors. The Industrial policy statement of 1991 besides emphasized the attainment of technological dynamism and international fight. It noted that the Indian industry could barely be competitory with the remainder of the universe if it had to run within an over-regulated environment. The chief push, as it stood before the Reforms of 1991, to forestall concentration of economic power to the common hurt, has now shifted to efficaciously control monopolistic, restrictive and unjust trade patterns.

The demand for a new Competition jurisprudence

However, even the reforms of 1991 were considered unequal, stressing the demand for a new competition jurisprudence. This led to the fundamental law of a High Level Committee on Competition Policy and Law in October, 1999 besides known as the Raghavan Committee. The footings of mention of the Committee, inter alia included urging a suited legislative model associating to competition jurisprudence, alterations associating to legal commissariats in regard of restrictive trade patterns and suited administrative steps required to implement the proposed recommendations. This commission went into the modes of conveying into a jurisprudence and a jurisprudence enforcement authorization in the signifier of the Competition Act and the Competition Commission of India severally. The Raghavan Committee Report states that the kernel and spirit of competition should be preserved as it encourages efficiency in the production and allotment of goods and services, and over clip, through its effects on invention and accommodation to technological alteration, a dynamic procedure of sustained economic growing. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs to which the Competition Bill, 2001 was referred for scrutiny, concluded that the stiffly structured MRTP Act necessitated its abrogation in position of the Government ‘s policy of being facilitator instead than regulator. Keeping in position the economic developments that have resulted in opening up of the Indian economic system, remotion of controls and attendant economic liberalisation which required that the Indian market be geared to confront competition within the state and outside, the Competition Act, 2002 was enacted pursuant to Raghavan Committees Report.

The Competition Act of 2002

The Competition Act has been designed as an omnibus codification to cover with affairs associating to the being and ordinance of competition and monopolies. Its objects are exalted, and include the publicity and nutriment of competition in markets, protection of consumer involvements and freedom of trade of other participants in the market, all against the background of the economic development of the state. It is compact, composed of 66 subdivisions. The statute law is procedure-intensive and is structured in an unsophisticated mode. The initial portion contains the definition clause. The first portion besides includes a description of activities prohibited under the Competition Act. This is important to our apprehension of the missive and spirit of the Competition Act, as all rules enunciated later flow from these commissariats. Structurally this is followed by a description of the Competition Commission of India ( CCI ) . Quite logically, a important part of the Competition Act has been devoted to the CCI and the executive powers granted to this statutory organic structure since it is finally the determination taken by the Commission, which would supply both way to the Act every bit good as the tendencies displayed in enforcement of the assorted commissariats of the Act. Similar to most statute law, the Competition Act is concluded by a chapter discoursing the assorted facets of the statute law and by and large applicable rules.

The rubric of the Act has basically four compartments:

  1. Anti- Competition Agreements
  2. Maltreatment of Laterality
  3. Combination Regulations
  4. Competition Advocacy

The Competition ( Amendment ) Bill, 2006

The Competition ( Amendment ) Bill, 2006, contains commissariats designed to turn to the Supreme Courts concerns. It besides proposes to do several other alterations in subdivisions of the Act covering with anti-competitive patterns. Some proposed amendments are rather reasonable, while others ( notably a modified lenience programme for houses that provide information about their engagement in a trust ) have been inadequately thought out. The amendments designed to pacify the Supreme Court will besides hold some negative effects. Several failings in the original Act remain unaddressed. Finally, the scarceness of the sort of economic expertness required to construe the Acts many-sided proficient clauses besides remains a affair of concern. Intensive capacity edifice and a re-assessment of the Act itself are desperately required.

Comparison between MRTP act 1969 and Competition act 2002

1

Based on the pre-reforms scenario

Based on the post-reforms scenario

2

Based on size as a factor

Based on construction as a factor

3

Competition offenses implicit or non defined

Competition offenses explicit and defined

4

Complex in agreement and linguistic communication

Simple in agreement and linguistic communication and easy comprehendible

5

14 per Se offenses contradicting the rules of natural justness

4 per Se offenses and all the remainder subjected to regulation of ground.

6

Frowns upon laterality

Frowns upon maltreatment of laterality

7

Registration of understandings compulsory

No demand of enrollment of understandings

8

No combinations ordinance

Combinations regulated beyond a high threshold bound.

9

Competition Commission appointed by the Government

Competition Commission selected by a Collegium ( search commission )

10

Very small administrative and fiscal liberty for the Competition Commission

Relatively more liberty for the Competition Commission

11

No competition protagonism function for the Competition Commission

Competition Commission has competition protagonism function

12

No punishments for offenses

Punishments for offenses

13

Reactive and stiff

Proactive and flexible

14

Unfair trade patterns covered

Unfair trade patterns omitted ( consumer fora will cover with them )

15

Does non enthrone MRTP Commission to ask into trusts of foreign beginning in a direct mode.

Competition Law seeks to modulate them.

16

Concept of ‘Group ‘ Act had wider import and was impracticable

Concept has been simplified

Decision

The quality of administration of the province is being watched really closely by citizens, investors and the international community. As more freedom is available to concerns to take from assorted states for investing, the viing authoritiess are besides witting about the function of administration in pulling investing. Any perceptual experience that the environment is non contributing to competition and the province has been captured by a few large concerns surely negatively affects the planetary investing determinations of houses. The same is besides true of the state of affairs within different states in a state as same considerations are used by the houses in doing investing determinations while taking locations for constitution of an industry. In a market construction where houses face weak competitory force per unit areas and the net incomes and monetary values are predictable the houses have small or no inducement to utilize resources expeditiously. Hence competition is accepted worldwide as the lifeblood of the market economic system. It spurs invention and higher productiveness taking to accelerated economic growing ; to the consumers it brings the benefit of lower monetary values, wider picks and better services. The consequence of competition on monetary value and handiness is best illustrated with an illustration from Indian telecommunications. Tele-density in India has risen from mere 2.32 in 1999 to 11.32 in December 2005-07. Besides there has been a dramatic autumn in telecom duties from Rs.16 per minute to Re.1 per minute with increased competition in this sector. Similarly, consumers have benefited from competition in other sectors such as civil air power, cars, newspapers and consumer electronics.

The passage of the Competition Act is a applaudable measure towards accomplishing the duplicate mantra of unfastened market economic system and liberalisation in a assorted economic system. The demand for reform in the legal system with respect to competition jurisprudence has been justly recognized by the legislative organic structures in the state. However, the reforms have non been smooth or speedy which has resulted in a stagnancy of the legal model steering the corporate sector. Further reforms need to be undertaken every bit fast as possible to guarantee that the development of the state does non take a backseat due to the pending legal reforms. Reforms must supply for good corporate administration, less of authorities controls and intervention, protection of consumers and public involvement, honoring the virtues and all to be achieved every bit shortly as possible because universe has besides options available other than India.