Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
Bid rigging/collusive bidding in a public tender for supply of machines was alleged to contravene Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Direct proof of cartelisation being rare, the finding was sustained on circumstantial evidence showing coordination, including use of the same IP address for bid submission, close telephonic association reflected in CDRs, and facilitation of bid security by one participant for others, demonstrating lack of independent competition; mere reduction in bid price did not rebut collusion. Once an agreement falling within Section 3(3) was established, the presumption of AAEC applied and was not rebutted. The contravention and penalty under Section 27(a) were upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Bid rigging/collusive bidding in a public tender for supply of machines was alleged to contravene Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Direct proof of cartelisation being rare, the finding was sustained on circumstantial evidence showing coordination, including use of the same IP address for bid submission, close telephonic association reflected in CDRs, and facilitation of bid security by one participant for others, demonstrating lack of independent competition; mere reduction in bid price did not rebut collusion. Once an agreement falling within Section 3(3) was established, the presumption of AAEC applied and was not rebutted. The contravention and penalty under Section 27(a) were upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
