{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03268945022288262, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019316493313521546, 'mean_word_length': 4.781115879828326, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legislative Pivot of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 and the Argument of 'Relevant Turnover' as Against 'Total Turnover': Key Takeaways from Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India (Supreme Court)

The Competition Act, 2002 is a regulatory legislation enacted to maintain free market so that the Adam Smith’s concept of invisible hand operates unhindered in the background. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India took upon itself, in the matter of Excel Crop Care v. Competition Commission of India (2017), the task of answering certain crucial questions of law relating to the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), which came before the Hon’ble Court for adjudication. These questions can be accounted for as follows: 
a. Section 3 of the Act having been notified on 20th May, 2009 is prospective or retrospective in operation? b. Is there any difference between collusive bidding and bid rigging? c. Whether penalty under Section 27(b) of the Act has to be on “total turnover” of the company covering all its products or it is relatable to “relevant turnover” viz. relating to the product in question in respect whereof the provisions of the Act are contravened? 
This research paper is a lucid presentation of the answers given to the above mentioned questions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.