Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

A.R. Polymers and others v. Competition Commission of India and Director General (Supplies & Disposals) - (Competition Appellate Tribunal) (12 Apr 2016)

CCI penalty on total turnover for collusion set aside

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Appellate Tribunal set aside a decision of the Competition Commission of India imposing a fine on total turnover from several products of the Appellants even though collusion was alleged in the case of only one good.

The Appellants, “multi-product companies” engaged in diverse manufacturing activity, including rubber goods such as footwear, had quoted substantially similar prices for the manufacture of ‘Jungle Boots’ to be purchased by Indian Paramilitary Forces, State Police, Railways and other agencies. The Director General (Supplied & Disposals) referred the matter to the Competition Commission of India, which ordered an investigation. It was found that the Appellants had quoted identical or near identical prices and sufficient evidence had been procured to establish collusion between the parties. The Commission went on to levy a penalty of five per cent on total turnover, in respect of all the products manufactured by them.

COMPAT concluded that the CCI was not empowered to order an investigation into the “product, goods or service other those qua which allegation of anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position is levelled…investigation officer is required to confine his investigation to the particular product”.

Relevant : Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and others MANU/SC/0306/2009 Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/0418/1969


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved