9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against impugned Order of Respondent No. 1/Competition Commission of India dated 26th August, 2020 passed under Section 26 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 in Case No. 14 of 2020. The Appellant claims that the Appellant/M/s. Sowil Ltd. is a Public Limited Company. Respondent No. 2/Hexagon Geosystems India Pvt. Ltd. is a Pvt. Ltd. Company. It is classified as subsidiary of Foreign Company based in Sweden. Ministry of Railways Research Designs & Standards Organisation (RDSO) invited bids for tender released on 26th June, 2019 for the 'Project of monitoring health of ballast bed with the help of GPR Technology for Through Ballast Renewal ('TBR') and formation rehabilitation on Indian Railways'. The Appellant claims that it approached Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant is submitting that Respondent No. 1 erred in not getting investigation done from Director General and thus the present Appeal was required to be filed. 4. We have heard the Learned Counsel and gone through the record. 5. In Paragraph 26 of the Order of CCI, the observation is as under: "Having examined the material available on record, the Commission notes that the Informant has not defined or suggested any relevant market. In the considered opinion of the Commission, it is neither necessary nor feasible to delineate the relevant market in the absence of requisite data on record particularly in light of the market construct emerging out of RDSO's reply dated 02.06.2020 wherefrom it can be deciphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that even Respondent No. 2 was one of the competitor who responded to the Railways for the Tender Notice which Railway floated copy of which is at Page 62. It is apparent that the Appellant approached its own competitor for supply of material and is then making various grievances. 8. Going through the impugned Order passed by CCI, we do not find that there is any reason to interf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
