https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95863 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 en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:23:19 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:23:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95863 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 Highlights Law of Competition Fri, 09 Jan 2026 11:23:19 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95863