Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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

Tags : COLLUSION   PENALTY   TOTAL TURNOVER   INVESTIGATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved