In many jurisdictions, including India, the relationship between intellectual property rights and competition law has not been resolved and has remained a moot point. On the one hand, competition law acts as a check on the use of dominant positions for unfair advantage by outlawing anti-competitive practises and agreements. On the other side, patent laws work to stop the production and sale of patented items without authorization or a licence. The two may initially appear to be at odds, but this has been shown false over time because organisations that are focused on innovation are the ones that compete with one another, fostering competition for innovation. Both systems are anticipated to act complementary to each other, as they intend to vitalize innovation, industry, and competition. But in some ways, they also complement one another. IPR offers the potential for technological innovation, which in turn produces more products and leads to the product's dynamic growth, which is regarded as one of the objectives of the competition policy. When an IPR holder exercises rights, it may be subject to the requirements of competition law, particularly if doing so has a negative impact on consumer welfare or amounts to abuse of a dominant position. Regarding the Competition Commission's authority to enforce its jurisdiction over the patentee's right to prevent competitors from using its protected technology, there have been divergent opinions. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was recently presented with this issue in the matter of Monsanto v. Competition Commission of India for invention. In light of the foregoing, this paper seeks to illustrate how Patent laws support the current competitive strategy, which adheres to fair market conduct and also puts emphasis on the goal of patent laws with regard to Competition Law. It also look into the overlap while discussing landmark precedents.