Bombay HC Conducts Emergency Hearing from CJ’s Residence as Court Staff Deployed for Elections  ||  Madras HC: Preventive Detention Laws are Draconian, Cannot be Used to Curb Dissent or Settle Politics  ||  HP HC: Mere Interest in a Project Cannot Justify Impleading a Non-Signatory in Arbitration  ||  J&K&L HC: Women Accused in Non-Bailable Offences Form a Distinct Class Beyond Sec 437 CrPC Rigour  ||  Bombay HC Restores IMAX’s Enforcement of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Applying Res Judicata  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case    

P.E.C. Usha Furniture v. Military Engineer Services, Officials working under CE (Navy) - (Competition Commission of India) (28 Jun 2016)

Cannot interfere in free choice of buyer: CCI

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India dismissed a complaint against a defence procuring department for ‘bid-rigging’, stating that the Commission “does not interfere into exercise of free choice by a buyer, unless that choice is resulting into anti-competitive effects.”

The complainant in the instant case, a furniture dealer, claimed it was registered as a Class C contractor with CE (Navy) at Vishakhapatnam. It alleged irregularities by the defence department in tender floating procedures: improper notice, restricting eligible bidders and colluding with a select group of bidders.

The Commission was dismissive of the complaint given the lack of evidence that either of the parties to have been favoured in the bidding process was in a dominant position. The dearth of evidence against the actions of the Military Engineer Services led to terming the information provided as “very general” and allegations against defence establishments indulging in bid rigging were unsubstantiated.

The Commission concluded by reiterating that in instances where a few suppliers were chosen or shortlisted over others, the practice could not be claimed to be anti-competitive. In fact, interfering in the process of choosing seller would be tantamount to interfering with the free choice of the buyer.

Tags : DEFENCE   PROCUREMENT   FURNITURE   SUPPLIER   BID-RIGGING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved