NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

International Spirits and Wines Association of India v. Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (19 Jul 2016)

CCI begins nosing around fishy Uttarakhand alcohol wholesaling

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India ordered an investigation into claims that the State-owned wholesalers in Uttarakhand are indulging in one-sided and unfair contracts forcing the International Spirits an Wines Association of India to distribute under-demanded brands of alcohol.

International Spirits and Wines Association of India is a representative for international spirits and wines companies supplying their products in India. its members include Bacardi India, United Spirits Limited, Pernod and Diageo.

Its complaint concerning the sale and distribution of alcohol in Uttarakhand - managed exclusively by state-owned bodies - alleged that wholesalers were not placing for ‘Indian Made Foreign Liquor’ according to prevailing demand. Instead, procurement practices were arbitrary and discriminated against certain manufacturers, despite high demand for their products.

Moreover, contract terms pertaining to IMFL were onerous, such as empowering state bodies to terminate contracts without warning, impose penalties and obligating IMFL manufacturers to bear the cost of bottling, transporting and handling their products at specified depots.

Though the Commission was ambivalent about terming the entire liquor market in Uttarakhand to be the relevant market, it accepted that the State bodies would be dominant regardless its scope. It noted a decline in alcohol procured from certain IMFL brands: United Spirits Limited’s sales had fallen from 3,56,106 cases in August-October 2014 to 10,776 for the same period in 2015. Other brands had witnessed a similar and sudden slump. Despite an order of the Uttarakhand High Court, the authorities had not begun placing orders for IMFL commensurate to consumer demand.

Investigation by the Directorate General are expected to be completed within 60 days from the date of the order.

Tags : WHOLESALE   INDIA MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR   UTTARAKHAND   DISCRIMINATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved