Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States  ||  Delhi High Court: Driving Licence Not Fake Solely For Not Being Converted Into a Smart Card  ||  Delhi High Court: Writ Petition Not Maintainable Before Final Order in Court Martial Proceedings  ||  J&K High Court Grants Relief to Lawyers Accused of Assault at Srinagar District Court Premises  ||  Delhi HC Imposes ?5 Lakh Fine on Rakshit Shetty For Unauthorised Song Use in Bachelor Party Film  ||  Delhi High Court Grants Huawei Partial Relief in Ongoing Income Tax Proceedings  ||  Delhi HC Upholds Bidder Disqualification in Sri Lanka Consular Services Tender For Lack of Experience  ||  Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring School Playground, Citing Inadequate Consideration  ||  Delhi High Court Directs Removal of Unauthorised Vendors, Declares Nehru Place a No-Vending Zone  ||  Kerala High Court: SHO Cannot Order Surrender of Firearms over Phone Calls Before Elections    

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