Anti-competitive agreements are agreements between competitors designed to prevent, restrict or distort competition. Section 34 of the Competition Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, decisions and practices. The Indian Evidence Act provides that any fact that will be brought before the court must be considered by the Court as a fact, until proven otherwise.  It is therefore clear that the presumption of the material impact of competition on the horizontal agreements covered in paragraph 3, paragraph 3, must be rebutted, but the person entitled to engage in such a commercial practice must come forward and prove otherwise. Anti-competitive agreements are also classified as horizontal and vertical agreements. In this regard, it should be noted that all of the above terms were under the Monopolies and Agreements Act 1969 and that the Competition Act 2002 had been introduced. As has already been said, anti-competition agreements can be divided into two areas: although the Competition Act 2002 does not recognize the classification of vertical and horizontal anti-competitive agreements, the language of subsections 3 and 4 indicates that the former are horizontal, while the latter are vertical agreements. Horizontal agreements are agreements in which two competing companies set prices on the same level of production or limit the volume of production or stock markets. It is considered that such agreements would be at the root of a ceaEC situation. In the case of Sodhi Transport Co. v. the State of the U.P., the “alleged” phrase was interpreted as a presumption and not as evidence for itself, as in section 3, paragraph 3, indicating the party on which the burden of proof lies.
Agreements are a popular example of such a horizontal agreement. One of the main objectives of the Competition Act is to eliminate practices that are harmful to competition.  It also obliged the Indian Competition Commission to prohibit all practices detrimental to competition in the Indian market and to implement all the objectives set out in the preamble.  Agreements have the character of the dominant control and control of trade and trade in each product, as well as the intent and power to essentially remove competitors. If there is an economic rivalry between companies or companies to attract the maximum number of customers and make the majority of profits, such a situation is referred to as competition. The legislation developed by Parliament to regulate this competition is known as competition law. It is also known as antitrust rules in some countries around the world. ICC Decision – The Commission found that such agreements were in the nature of exclusive delivery, exclusive distribution agreements and refusal to act under Section 3 (4) of the Act, and the Commission therefore had to determine whether such agreements would have an AAEC in India. Moreover, there is no need for written proof of such an agreement and, therefore, if an oral agreement has similar effects, it falls within the part of the agreement. Competition between companies participating in a similar production chain is called horizontal agreement, while competition between parties in the same supply chain is referred to as a vertical agreement.