TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t - HELD THAT:- In STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI ORS. [ 2013 (3) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT ] it was held in a proceeding under the Competition Act, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Admittedly, all the statements are made by witnesses who were the authors/recipients of the emails and have confirmed their interaction with each other. Admittedly the appellant had never challenged the correctness of statements made by the other members and never sought a permission to cross examine them. All the evidence has been construed holistically by the Commission before giving its justification. The oral statements and the email are completely consistent with each other. Moreso in view of the very definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Reference Case No.03/2016. The impugned order is a common order with respect to Reference Cases No.5 of 2016, 1 of 2018, 4 of 2018 and 8 of 2018. The appellant No.1 was a party only in Reference case No.03/2016. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant vide an impugned order, the Commission had erroneously found Appellant No.1 guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act. 3. It is argued no appeal against an impugned order has been filed by any of the other parties who have been found liable by the Commission. The present case merit an interference of this Tribunal because although the contravention of Section 3 of the Act was virtua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. 6. Heard. 7. A bare perusal of the statements made by the members of the Cartel, before the Director General are all relevant here. The confession of one Jagdish Gadikar of HCL was he had created an email account i.e. jagadsharma@rediffmail.com for the purpose of communication with the competitors namely Masu, Rane, ILPL, Escorts, Bony, Cemcon, Om Besco, Sundaram Brake, Allied, Nippon and Pioneer and since the aforesaid players had an arrangement to quote in different railway Tenders of CBB after discussing with each other and allocating the quantities of CBB, it was felt to avoid any complication from CCI or MRTP, official email ids of the companies should not be used. Thereafter, after discussions with the representatives of afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o inform him about particular price to be quoted in such railway tenders. 11. Most importantly the confession of Mr. Priyankar Bose, Manager of the appellant company that they are a small fish in this anti-competitive arrangement between the big companies and never intended to violate any law. He confessed all the price bid discussions and allocation of quantities for CBB of Indian railway Tenders prior to 2014 has been done by the company management and not by him. He also said sometimes the Management did not consider emails of Sh Jagdish Gadikar, as forwarded by him, for taking the decision in relation to the price bids and accordingly many a times, independent decisions were taken by the company. He further stated after 2014 his company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 14. Another email dated 22.04.2013, Exhibit 28 also was sent by Mr. Jagdish Gadikar to all the opposite parties, including the appellant company wherein two attachments including (i) agenda for meeting with Greysham (Om Besco) in Delhi and (ii) Excel sheet showing share of tender quantities for K and L type CBB till 12.04.2013 has been annexed. The excel sheets details include share of business of L Freight Brake Blocks (for finalized tenders) from 23.09.2011 to 12.04.2013 along with calculated compensation 15. All these statements of different witnesses, including confessions of the Vice President, Marketing and the Manager of the appellant company would go on to show the appellant company was very much part of the cartel and now is tryi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 SCC 17 it was held in a proceeding under the Competition Act, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Admittedly, all the statements are made by witnesses who were the authors/recipients of the emails and have confirmed their interaction with each other. Admittedly the appellant had never challenged the correctness of statements made by the other members and never sought a permission to cross examine them. All the evidence has been construed holistically by the Commission before giving its justification. The oral statements and the email are completely consistent with each other. Moreso in view of the very definition of cartelisation in Section 2(c ) of the Act, even an attempt to rig a bid is sufficient to attract the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
