Search

The term Unfair Trade Practice (UTPs) broadly refers to a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice which is prohibited by a statute or has been recognised as actionable under law or by a judgement of the court. This research paper deals with the reason behind the incorporation of the concept of unfair trade practices to Consumer Laws rather making it a part of Competition Laws. Further the paper analyses the concept of unfair trade practices in India by comparing the provisions of Competition and Consumer Laws made for the concern. This research paper aims to highlight the position of UTPs in India and analyses the interface between competition law and consumer law in the theoretical framework and through the non-uniform understanding of ‘consumer welfare’ with respect to unfair trade practices that is interpreted in both the legislation. Further this paper in detail will be dealing with, in various headings, the evolution of UTPs in MRTP, Consumer and Competition Act, the abolition of the MRTP Act, various steps taken under the Sachar Committee and the Raghavan Committee, the establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Competition Act, 2002, the position of UTPs in Consumer and Competition laws, the reason of incorporation of UTPs in Consumer Laws, the various components of UTPs and the authorities and agencies dealing with UTPs.

This research paper explores the doctrine of self-defence within the context of the challenges directed at the imminence requirement, from the perspective of national law. This research paper will further attempt to illustrate that the requirement of imminence underlines the political character of the self-defence doctrine wherein private force may only be exercised when there is an absence of institutional protection. This research paper demonstrates how a rights-based account can explain the broad and narrow nature of the right of self-defense. This study will further argue that the imminence rule can't simply be considered as a "proxy" for establishing necessity, instead it is to be proved that the elements of imminence, necessity, and proportionality are inevitably connected to ensure that defensive force is barely resorted to when national authorities are not in a position to prevent an illegal aggression, and that the defensive force is not abused and misused.