Bid-rigging was proved by direct and circumstantial email...

Bid-rigging was proved by direct and circumstantial email evidence showing coordinated bidding, allocation of shares, tender distribution, price discussions, bid withdrawal directions and continued receipt of cartel communications without dissociation; contravention under Sections 3(1) and 3(3)(a) to (d) was therefore affirmed. Once cartel conduct was established, the presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition applied and was not rebutted; reliance on Rajasthan Cylinder was distinguished. The partner's liability under Section 48 was upheld, and penalty based on average income at the same rate as the firm was held proper. Challenges based on vacancy in composition and denial of cross-examination failed, and both appeals were dismissed.