Madhya Pradesh High Court: Victims Must be Given a Hearing Even Before Closure Report Rejection  ||  Delhi HC: Payment of ‘Pagri’ Does Not Render Tenancy Non-Terminable, Allowing Eviction  ||  Ker HC Examined Whether Electro-Homeopathy Can be Practised Without Registration under Medical Laws  ||  Delhi HC: Better Possessory Title Holder Can Recover Property From Occupant Without Superior Right  ||  Bombay High Court: Compensatory Afforestation Must Be in Same or Nearby Locality For Residents  ||  Bombay High Court Protects ‘MEFTAL-SPAS’, Restrains Use of Similar Drug Brand  ||  Supreme Court: Inclusion in Revised Select List Does Not Give TN MV Inspectors a Vested Right  ||  Bombay HC: ICC Cannot Hear Sexual Harassment Complaint over Non-Employer Transport Incident  ||  Ker HC Upholds Rule that Homeopathic Doctors Must Cancel Registration Before Enrolment as Advocates  ||  J&K&L HC: Evidence Negating Penetration Warrants Conviction For Attempt to Rape, Not Rape    

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