The Competition commission of India (CCI) has imposed penalty on HP India and its certain resellers for indulging in anti-competitive practices in supply of personal system products.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), vide an order dated 13.07.2026 issued under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002, (the Act) has imposed a penalty of INR 126.87 crores on HP India and a combined penalty of INR 1.22 crores approximately, on its five resellers, respectively, for indulging in cartelisation in sale and supply of personal system products.

The Commission also directed HP India and its five resellers to cease and desist from anti-competitive conduct found to be in violation of Sections 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

The proceedings arose from the lesser penalty application filed by HP India under Section 46 of the Act 19(1)(a) of the Act, alleging cartelisation amongst HP India and its resellers. Based on the evidence on record, the Commission found that HP India was engaged in dictating bid prices to resellers and manipulated participation of resellers in the GeM tenders by withholding authorisation, in order to benefit itself in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

The Commission also found that its five resellers viz. Delphi Infosolutions, Digitech Computers, Orbit Techsol, Hind Technocare and Krishna Computers were acting in collusion with HP India in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The CCI also found the officials of HP India and its resellers liable under Section 48 of the Act and imposed monetary penalty upon them. 

The order was passed in Suo Moto Case No. 07 of 2020 and a copy of the same is available on the CCI website at www.cci.gov.in.

Bid-price coordination and tender-participation manipulation in personal system products attract competition-law penalties and cease-and-desist directions. HP India and five resellers were found to have engaged in cartelisation in the sale and supply of personal system products. The conduct included dictating bid prices and manipulating reseller participation in GeM tenders by withholding authorisation. The conduct was treated as contravening Sections 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The resellers were found to have acted in collusion with HP India, while officials were treated as liable under Section 48. Penalties and cease-and-desist directions were imposed under the Act.