Horizontal agreements are capable of having serious and serious consequences on competition, under which these agreements are taken seriously by many competition laws around the world, not on vertical agreements. Vertical agreements include agreements between two companies at different stages of the production agreement. B for example between the manufacturer and the seller, or between the seller and the distributor. The issue of vertical agreements is determined by the Tribunal on the basis of the above-mentioned motivational principle. This rule analyzes the positive and negative effects of competition. The whole notion of a perceptible negative effect has been placed under the subjective`s head, as it differs from person to person. Horizontal agreements fall under Section 3 (3) of the Competition Act 2002. With regard to these agreements, it can be assumed that the dominant competition in the market is significantly altered. However, this effect is not taken into account in vertical agreements and, therefore, horizontal agreements are subject to strict rules and rules. VERTICAL AGREEMENTS- Vertical agreements are agreements between two or more companies operating at different levels of production2. For example, between suppliers and distributors. Other examples of vertical anti-competitive agreements are that when an agreement is reached between one of the above agreements, it would be entitled to be null and void under the law and, for the decision, they are considered on a case-by-case basis according to the rule of reason1. A new competition law has been adopted in India, taking into account the dynamic trends observed in the new market scenario.
One of the main objectives of the Act was to change India`s economic policy, reduce trade barriers and impose trade-friendly changes. All of this would ensure fair competition in the market, which would both benefit the consumer and ensure the proper functioning of the market while not proving arbitrary. This was done to ensure that agreements made by commercial enterprises were not anti-competitive. By law, horizontal agreements are categorized into a particular category and are subject to a negative presumption of anti-competitiveness. This rule is also called “in itself.”