Bom. HC: Strong Message Needs to be Sent to ED to Act Within Parameters of Law  ||  DDA Admits Contempt by Allowing Felling of Trees to Broaden Road  ||  SC Proposes Appointment of Ad-Hoc Judges Due to High Pendency of Criminal Cases  ||  Madras HC Restores Suit by Testbook against Google Over Billing Policy  ||  Gujarat High Court, 4% Reservation, Persons With Disabilities  ||  Guj. HC Issues Notice on Plea Seeing Implementation of 4% Reservation in Promotions for PwDs  ||  SC: Prices under MoU for Inter-Supply of Petroleum Products Don’t Constitute ‘Transaction Value’  ||  SC Asks HC Judges to Record Annual Confidential Reports of Judicial Officers Promptly  ||  Supreme Court Directs States & HCs to Frame Rules to Increase Posts of District Judge  ||  SC: Asking Woman to Not Live if She Can’t Live Without Marrying Her Lover Isn’t Abetment to Suicide    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved