Skip to main content

Different criteria to apply for price rigging when many sellers are supplying to few buyers

In  Rajasthan Cylinders v. Competition Commission of India,  the appellants were suppliers of LPG cylinders to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and other Oil Marketing Companies [OMCs].  It was alleged that the appellants indulged in bid rigging by quoting same prices in their bids. The Director General (Investigation) (DG) discerned a pattern wherein parties submitted their bids in various states at the same level to prove price parallelism. The DG in its report indicated instances when the appellants met to allegedly discuss the tender prices. Based on these findings, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), as well as the Appellate Tribunal, confirmed the allegation of bid rigging and imposed penalties.

The Supreme Court while deciding the case has adopted a different approach. While observing the instances of price parallelism, the Court has held that a key test which needs to be identified while investigating cases of bid rigging is the market situation. The Apex Court identified that this is a case where the buyers are very few and they have a control over the prices of the goods being sold by the seller. Such a situation is known as ‘oligopsony’.

In such a scenario, the onus of anti-competitive behaviour cannot be entirely saddled on the seller to mark him as an offender. To substantiate this aspect, the Court took recourse to judgments of the European Court of Justice which the address the concept of ‘oligopsony’ vis a vis competition law. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the sellers and set aside the allegation of bid rigging under the Act.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more