Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved