Delhi HC Grants ‘Superlative Injunction’ in Favor of Broadcaster Star India  ||  NCLAT: Suspended Management of CD is Prohibited from Deploying the Funds of Corporate Debtor  ||  Delhi HC: No Insistence of ID Card in Pregnancy Cases of Rape Victims  ||  Kerala High Court Allows Petition by Transgender Couple Seeking Issuance of New Birth Certificate  ||  Delhi High Court: RITZ and RITZ CARLTON Marks Have Achieved Status of Well-Known Trademarks  ||  Allahabad High Court Declares Arrest of Accused Illegal for Non-Compliance of Article 22(1)  ||  SC to Consider Whether Courts Can Hear Disputes Relating to Properties of Erstwhile Princely States  ||  Rajasthan HC Directs State to Not Take Coercive Steps Against Meat Shop Owners  ||  Gujarat HC Grants Leave to Complainant under Section 12 Despite Completion of Inquiry  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Liberally Construe Benefit of S. 14 Limitation Act Just to Save a Lis    

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