Supreme Court: Imminent Death Not Required For a Statement to Qualify as Dying Declaration  ||  SC: HC Cannot Grant Pre-Arrest Bail Without Quashing FIR; Accused Must Approach Sessions Court First  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: Agreed Interest Rate Cannot Be Challenged as Exorbitant; Arbitrator Cannot Override Contract  ||  SC: GST Exemption on Residential Lease Applies When Building is Sub-Leased for Hostel/PG Use  ||  Rajasthan High Court: Universities Cannot Retain Students’ Original Documents for Pending Fees  ||  NCLT: Damages from Contractual Disputes Cannot Form Basis for Initiating Insolvency Proceedings  ||  Del HC: Pre-SCN Consultation is Unnecessary in Large-Scale GST Fraud Cases with Complex Transactions  ||  Calcutta HC: Unilaterally Appointed Arbitrator Violates Natural Justice and Sets Aside the Award  ||  Raj HC Upholds Padmesh Mishra’s AAG Appointment, Noting Advocacy Skill isn’t Tied to Experience    

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