Appeal Rejected: Tribunal Confirms Penalties for Anti-Competitive Bid-Rigging and Cartelization Violations.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Competition Commission of India's findings that OP-7 and its Director were guilty of engaging in anti-competitive conduct, specifically bid-rigging and cartelization, in violation of Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission's order and the penalties imposed on OP-7 and its Director were affirmed, rejecting the Appellant's arguments and evidence presented in their defense.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged anti-competitive conduct by various bidders.
2. Role of OP-7 in the bid-rigging and cartelization.
3. Appellant's involvement and evidence against them.
4. Conclusion and findings by the Commission.

Summary:

1. Alleged anti-competitive conduct by various bidders:
This appeal challenges the order dated 03.02.2022 by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regarding the alleged anti-competitive conduct by various bidders in the supply and installation of signages at specified locations of State Bank of India (SBI) across India. The CCI initiated Suo Motu proceedings under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, based on a complaint about bid-rigging and cartelization in the tender floated by SBI Infra Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (SBIIMS).

2. Role of OP-7 in the bid-rigging and cartelization:
The Commission investigated the role of OP-7 (Hith Impex Pvt. Ltd.) and its Director, Mr. Manish Jodhavat, in the bid-rigging scheme. The investigation revealed that Mr. Jodhavat provided crucial inputs for the rigged pricing, as evidenced by emails dated 02.06.2018 and 04.06.2018. Despite OP-7's claims that the findings were based on hearsay and lacked documentary evidence, the Commission noted Mr. Jodhavat's significant role in influencing the bid prices and the overall bid manipulation process. The Commission concluded that OP-7 was part of the arrangement to geographically allocate the market and rig the bids, violating Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act.

3. Appellant's involvement and evidence against them:
The Appellant argued that they were not involved in the final bidding process and were merely suppliers of 'Vinyl' and 'Flex' to OP-4. They contended that the emails referencing Mr. Jodhavat did not suffice to establish their involvement in the cartel. However, the Commission found substantial evidence, including depositions and email correspondence, indicating OP-7's active participation in the bid-rigging scheme. The Commission noted that OP-7 submitted applications in response to the EOI published by SBIIMS and was involved in the tender process, contrary to their claims.

4. Conclusion and findings by the Commission:
The Commission concluded that the definition of an 'agreement' under Section 2(b) of the Act includes any tacit understanding or action in concert, even without formal documentation. It determined that OP-7 and Mr. Jodhavat were involved in the cartel based on the preponderance of probabilities. Consequently, the Commission found OP-7 guilty of contravening Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the Commission's findings and rejecting the Appellant's arguments.

Final Decision:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commission's order and the penalties imposed on OP-7 and its Director.

---