TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr Akash Kundu , Advocates JUDGEMENT JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) This appeal is filed under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002 against an order dated 10.07.2020 in Reference Case No.03/2016. The impugned order is a common order with respect to Reference Cases No.5 of 2016, 1 of 2018, 4 of 2018 and 8 of 2018. The appellant No.1 was a party only in Reference case No.03/2016. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant vide an impugned order, the Commission had erroneously found Appellant No.1 guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act. 3. It is argued no appeal against an impugned order has been filed by any of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion given by its employee Mr P. Basu was without any authorisation of the Company but it was never supported by any document, hence was wrongly relied upon by the Commission to convict this appellant. 6. Heard. 7. A bare perusal of the statements made by the members of the Cartel, before the Director General are all relevant here. The confession of one Jagdish Gadikar of HCL was he had created an email account i.e. [email protected] for the purpose of communication with the competitors namely Masu, Rane, ILPL, Escorts, Bony, Cemcon, Om Besco, Sundaram Brake, Allied, Nippon and Pioneer and since the aforesaid players had an arrangement to quote in different railway Tenders of CBB after discussing with each other and allocating the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther one Mr. S.R. Venkat Raj, General Manager of Rane had also confessed that Mr. Umesh Shah, an employee of his company after discussions with other bidders, including the appellant herein used to inform him about particular price to be quoted in such railway tenders. 11. Most importantly the confession of Mr. Priyankar Bose, Manager of the appellant company that they are a small fish in this anti-competitive arrangement between the big companies and never intended to violate any law. He confessed all the price bid discussions and allocation of quantities for CBB of Indian railway Tenders prior to 2014 has been done by the company management and not by him. He also said sometimes the Management did not consider emails of Sh Jagdish Gadik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, BIC/Masu, Cemcon, Bony, SBL and Om Besco/Greysham. The excel sheet also contained share of quantities for EMU CBB from 01.04.2010 to 12.09.2011 between HCL, Rane, ILPL, Escorts, Cemcon and BIC/Masu. 14. Another email dated 22.04.2013, Exhibit 28 also was sent by Mr. Jagdish Gadikar to all the opposite parties, including the appellant company wherein two attachments including (i) agenda for meeting with Greysham (Om Besco) in Delhi and (ii) Excel sheet showing share of tender quantities for K and L type CBB till 12.04.2013 has been annexed. The excel sheets details include share of business of L Freight Brake Blocks (for finalized tenders) from 23.09.2011 to 12.04.2013 along with calculated compensation 15. All these statements of diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....form of statements made by Cartel members which belies the argument that the appellant was merely a recipient of information. 20. In State of Maharashtra V Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansar and others (2013) 12 SCC 17 it was held in a proceeding under the Competition Act, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Admittedly, all the statements are made by witnesses who were the authors/recipients of the emails and have confirmed their interaction with each other. Admittedly the appellant had never challenged the correctness of statements made by the other members and never sought a permission to cross examine them. All the evidence has been construed holistically by the Commission before giving its justification. The oral statements ....