NCLAT: Can File Appeal against NCLT Order Initiating Insolvency Process against Personal Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Assets Reflecting in Corporate Debtor’s Balance Sheet form Part of Liquidation Estate  ||  NCLAT: Adjudicating Authority Must Conduct Independent Assessment under IBC  ||  NCLAT: Can’t Preclude Financial Creditors from Filing Applic. in Case of Settlement Agreement Breach  ||  NCLT: Can’t Call Speculative Investment a 'Financial Debt' in Absence of Commercial Effect of Borrowi  ||  NCLAT: Committee of Creditors Within its Right to Resolve to Liquidate Go Airlines  ||  AP HC: Revealed Particulars of Invest. Not Adequately Substantiated Can Damage Reputation of Persons  ||  J&K HC: Administrative Officers Can’t Claim Seniority on Basis of Unfilled Vacancies  ||  Bombay High Court: One Needs to be Mindful of the Object Behind the Consumer Protection Act  ||  J&K HC: Can’t Put Accused under Prev. Detention Only because His Release Affects Public Confidence    

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