https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784637 The dominant issue was whether the appellant and other bidders engaged in bid rigging/collusive bidding contravening s.3(3) of the Competition Act in a public tender. The AT held that direct evidence of cartelisation is rarely available and may be inferred from surrounding circumstances; here, common IP address usage for bid submissions, close telephonic association supported by CDRs, and the appellant arranging EMD for other bidders established coordination and absence of genuine competition. Once an "agreement" under s.2(b) was proved within s.3(3), an AAEC presumption arose and was not rebutted. The finding of contravention and the s.27(a) directions, including proportionate penalty, were upheld; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784637 The dominant issue was whether the appellant and other bidders engaged in bid rigging/collusive bidding contravening s.3(3) of the Competition Act in a public tender. The AT held that direct evidence of cartelisation is rarely available and may be inferred from surrounding circumstances; here, common IP address usage for bid submissions, close telephonic association supported by CDRs, and the appellant arranging EMD for other bidders established coordination and absence of genuine competition. Once an "agreement" under s.2(b) was proved within s.3(3), an AAEC presumption arose and was not rebutted. The finding of contravention and the s.27(a) directions, including proportionate penalty, were upheld; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Law of Competition Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784637