SC: Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act Preference For Class-I Heirs Applies to Agricultural Land  ||  Supreme Court: Refund Clause in Sale Agreement Does Not Extinguish Right to Specific Performance  ||  SC Clarifies When a Probate Application Filed After a Testator's Death is Time-Barred  ||  Madras HC: Coordinate Bench Cannot Reopen Issue Already Settled by Another Division Bench  ||  Delhi HC Urges Law to Regulate Media, Notes Anyone with a Mobile Phone Can Claim to be a Journalist  ||  CCI Rejects Allegations of Collusion Involving Reliance Jio and More Than 4,500 Entities  ||  Allahabad HC: Working Mother with Child Custody Cannot Shift Entire Maintenance Liability to Father  ||  Bombay HC: Possessory Suit U/S 6 of the SRA is Maintainable Despite a Licensor-Licensee Relationship  ||  Del HC: Master's Candidates Without the Prescribed Bachelor's Degree are Ineligible as Govt Teacher  ||  Cal HC: BSF Cannot Deny DIG Rank to an Officer Injured in 1995 Road Accident After Earlier Promotion    

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