9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 625 - AT - Indian LawsInvitation of bids for tender - qouting of double price - Section 53 B of the Competition Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - The CCI has found that the Appellant failed to define or suggest relevant market. It found it is neither necessary nor feasible to delineate the relevant market in the absence of requisite data on record particularly in the light of market emerging out of RSDOs reply which CCI received. The CCI deciphered that apart from the Opposite Party (Respondent No. 2) there are at least four other major global players in the market for rolling stock mounted GPR for Ballast Inspection in India. The Order as reproduced names of the other players. The Appellant is trying to put the burden on CCI to find out the relevant market instead of itself defining or suggesting relevant market with prima facie material. Apart from this, the order of CCI shows that there are other players available in the market. There is no material shown that the Appellant had approached the other players - no case is made out to entertain the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed without admitting the same.
Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 53 B of the Competition Act, 2002 against the Order of Competition Commission of India. 2. Allegation of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act. 3. Failure to define or suggest relevant market by the Appellant. 4. CCI's decision not to delineate the relevant market due to lack of data. 5. Presence of multiple global players in the market for rolling stock mounted GPR for Ballast Inspection in India. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed under Section 53 B of the Competition Act, 2002 against the Order of the Competition Commission of India, which was passed under Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 in Case No. 14 of 2020. The Appellant, a Public Limited Company, approached Respondent No. 2, a Pvt. Ltd. Company, for the supply of rolling stock mounted GPR for ballast inspection to compete for a tender released by the Ministry of Railways. The Appellant claimed that Respondent No. 2 quoted a price significantly higher than the market rate, leading to allegations of unfair pricing practices. 2. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) considered the information submitted by the Appellant but found no contravention of the Act. The Appellant contended that CCI erred in not conducting an investigation through the Director General, leading to the filing of the present appeal. 3. The Appellant failed to define or suggest a relevant market in the case. The CCI, in its order, noted the absence of data to delineate the relevant market, especially considering the presence of multiple global players in the market for similar products. 4. CCI decided not to delineate the relevant market due to insufficient data and the presence of several major global players in the market. The Commission found that the Opposite Party (Respondent No. 2) did not appear to hold a dominant market position based on the market structure and the number of competitors. 5. The CCI's order highlighted the presence of at least four other major global players in the market for rolling stock mounted GPR for Ballast Inspection in India, besides the Opposite Party. The Appellant's claim of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act required the delineation of the relevant market, establishing dominance, and proving a prima facie case of abuse, which the CCI found lacking in the absence of sufficient evidence. 6. The Appellant's attempt to shift the burden of defining the relevant market to CCI was dismissed, as the order indicated the availability of other market players and the Appellant's failure to approach them for comparison. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the CCI's decision and dismissed the appeal without admission.
|
