SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

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