Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
Abstract The starting point of this paper is a January 1977 judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, which applied the rule of reason to vertical restraints and anticipated many of the arguments of the Sylvania judgment. After summarizing the background of the Indian case, I set out the main points of similarity and difference between the two judgments, and finally assess the somewhat erratic influence of post-Sylvania antitrust thinking on Indian competition law and jurisprudence.