2024 (11) TMI 931 - CCI - Companies Law

Contravention of provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Cartelization in a tender process - HELD THAT - The Commission observes that the documents, prima-facie, do not substantiate the allegations of collusion/cartelisation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as raised by the Informant. The Commission notes that the material furnished by the Informant does not prima-facie, point to bid rigging or collusive bidding in contravention of provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act by the Opposite Parties. The Commission notes that no case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter is made out and the matter is directed to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.

Summary

Issues: Alleged cartelization in a tender process.

The judgment pertains to an information filed alleging contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 by multiple parties in a tender process. The informant accused four companies, including Laerdal Medical Private Ltd., of colluding in a tender issued by Government Medical College, Haldwani, Uttarakhand. The informant claimed that two of the companies quoted on behalf of Laerdal Medical Private Ltd., and another company was connected to one of the accused companies through common ownership. The informant also alleged that certain purchase orders and documents submitted by the accused companies were forged or manipulated to show collusion. The informant requested the Competition Commission of India to take action against the accused parties and conduct a thorough inquiry.

The Commission reviewed the material provided by the informant, including authorization letters, certificates, performance certificates, and other documents. However, the Commission found that the documents did not substantiate the allegations of collusion or cartelization as claimed by the informant. The Commission noted that the evidence did not establish bid rigging or collusive bidding by the accused parties, as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was no prima facie case of contravention of Section 3 of the Act that warranted further investigation. Consequently, the Commission decided to close the matter under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, directing the Secretary to inform the informant accordingly.