Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + AT Indian Laws - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1773 - AT - Indian LawsAnti-competitive Activities - bid rigging - Cartel - contract for supply of feed valves by Respondent No. 2 - suppression of material facts - it was alleged that the appellants have indulged in bid- rigging/collusive bidding and thereby contravened the provisions of Section 3(1) read Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(d) of the Act - penalty imposed on average turnover - case of appellant is that findings recorded by the DG and the Commission on the issues of formation of cartel and bid rigging/ collusive bidding is perverse. Held that:- The cartel is an association of producers who by agreement among themselves attempt to control production, sale and prices of the product to obtain a monopoly in any particular industry or commodity. Analysing the object of formation of a cartel in other words, it amounts to an unfair trade practice which is not in the public interest. The intention to acquire monopoly power can be spelt out from formation of such a cartel by some of the producers. However, the determination whether such agreement unreasonably restrains the trade depends on the nature of the agreement and on the surrounding circumstances that give rise to an inference that the parties intended to restrain the trade and monopolise the same. The observation made by the Commission that the appellants had adopted a strategy which involved supplementary/complementary bidding by EL and FTRTIL is based on pure conjectures and is liable to be rejected because before making this observation, the Commission did not give any opportunity to the two appellants to have their say. Similarly, the observation made by the Commission that the Tender Committee committed an illegality in overlooking the bids of EL and FTRTIL is ex facie erroneous. Once the competent authority had laid down particular conditions required to be fulfilled by the tenderer and the two of the three tenderers failed to comply with the same, the Tender Committee and Respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have committed any illegality by not acting upon their tenders. The Tender Committee could have recommended for fresh tendering and Respondent No. 2 could have accepted that recommendation but their failure to do so cannot lead to an inference that they have acted with ulterior motive or that the Tender Committee ought to have waived the defects/deficiencies and allowed the two appellants i.e. EL and FTRTIL to participate in the bid or called them for negotiations. The variation in the quantum of price quoted by the appellants is also evident from the statement furnished by the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. Therefore, it must be held that both the DG and the Commission committed grave error by relying upon the so-called past conduct of the appellants in quoting identical price as a plus-factor for arriving at a conclusion that they had formed a cartel. The findings and conclusions recorded by the DG and the Commission that the appellants are guilty of cartel formation and bid-rigging are legally unsustainable - also, the penalty imposed by the Commission is based on erroneous interpretation of Section 27(b) and is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the penalty imposed on the appellants by the Commission is quashed - Appeal allowed.
|