Delhi HC: Non-Proof of Hearing Notice Dispatch Doesn’t by Itself Show no Personal Hearing Was Given  ||  Delhi High Court: No Construction or Residence Allowed on Yamuna Floodplains, Even For Graveyards  ||  J&K High Court: Right to Speedy Trial Includes Appeals; Closes 46-Year-Old Criminal Case Due to Delay  ||  J&K High Court: Courts Must Not Halt Corruption Probes, Refuses to Quash FIR  ||  J&K&L HC: Matrimonial Remedies May Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot be Selectively Invoked  ||  Delhi High Court: Customs Officials Acting Officially Cannot be Cross-Examined as of Right  ||  J&K&L HC: Second Arbitral Reference is Maintainable if Award is Set Aside Without Deciding Merits  ||  J&K&L HC: Gold Voluntarily Given to Customer is 'Entrustment'; Theft Excluded from Insurance Cover  ||  Delhi HC: Working Mothers Cannot be Forced to Bear Full Childcare Burden While Fathers Evade Duty  ||  J&K&L HC: Arbitral Tribunal Not a “Court”; Giving False Evidence Before it Doesn’t Attract S.195 CrPC    

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