TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Satish Kumar Agarwal/ Appellant 1 and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons/ Appellant 2 herein, had contravened Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) r/w Section 3(1) of the Act. The appeal has been filed under Section 53(b) of the Act challenging the impugned order of the Commission. Brief facts of the case 2. The commission received a general complaint dated 07.08.2018 alleging bid-rigging in the tenders invited by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh for soil sample testing. The complaint related to alleged bid rigging in respect of two e-tenders namely, Tender 2018_AGRUP_210583_1 (Moradabad) dated 31.05.2018 ("Tender No. 1") and Tender 2018_AGRUP_212591_1 (Bareilly) dated 18.06.2018 ('Tender No. 2"), invited for the soil sample testing by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. 3. It was stated in the complaint that the following parties participated in the aforesaid two tenders of soil testing in Uttar Pradesh: (i) M/s Yash Solutions (ii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal (iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak and Sons (iv) M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation (v) M/s Lab Traders (vi) Edward Food Research and Analysis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mit the investigation report in the matter. The commission also observed that if the DG came across anti-competitive conduct of any other entity in addition to those mentioned in the information, the DG would be at a liberty to investigate the same. The DG was also directed to investigate the role of the persons/officers, who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the businesses of the parties at the time the alleged contravention was committed, as well as persons/officers with whose consent or connivance the alleged contravention was committed, in terms of the provisions of section 48 of the Act. The DG, pursuant to the directions of the Commission, investigated the matter, and after seeking due extensions of time, submitted the investigation Report dated 08.04.2021. 7. The relevant findings of the investigation Report relating to the appellant's role are the following: (i) Investigation covered 9 tenders namely, tenders of (a) 2017 and 2018 for Moradabad division, (b) 2017 and 2018 for Bareilly division, (c) 2017 for Jhansi division, (d) 2018 for Saharanpur division, (e) 2017 and 2018 for Meerut division, and (f) 2018 for Aligarh division. (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proprietor of the said entities. (vi) The investigation also brought out that a common IP address was used for the submission of e-bids in respect of M/s Satish Kumar, M/s Siddhi Vinayak, M/s Saraswati Sales and M/s Yash Solutions in the Moradabad tenders for the year 2018. Further, in the Bareilly tenders for the year 2018, the bids submitted by M/s Siddhi Vinayak, M/s Satish Kumar and Yash Solutions were submitted through a common IP address. The login ID used by M/s Siddhi Vinayak to submit the bids in the Bareilly and Moradabad tenders for the year 2018 also belonged to M/s Yash Solutions. (vii) M/s Yash Solutions, having no prior experience of soil testing work, had submitted its bids, for various divisions and was awarded tenders in the Bareilly and Moradabad divisions in the year 2017 and Moradabad and Aligarh Divisions in the year 2018. The investigation concluded that M/s Yash Solutions, in collusion with M/s Satish Kumar, M/s Siddhi Vinayak, M/s Saraswati Sales and Chaitanya Business Outsourcing, had rigged the bids in the years 2017 and 2018 issued by various divisions of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. (viii) Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....soil testing for the first time in 2017, when Yash Solutions had applied for and was awarded the Bareilly tender for soil testing and for the purpose of expansion into new projects, they decided to apply for the Moradabad tender in 2017. 11. The Appellants averred that, Mr. Rachit Agarwal, an employee of Yash Solutions, who was well-versed in the process of applying for the tenders as well as related work involving soil testing, assured them that they would emerge as winners and will provide them the necessary assistance in carrying out the work of soil testing. 12. It has been submitted that the entire work such as providing the relevant documents; identity proofs; audit reports; etc., relating to tenders of soil testing was undertaken by a team comprising Mr. Suraj Singh, Mr. Vivek Saxena and Mr. Anuj Sharma, who were employees of Yash Solutions, and that M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak, had absolutely no role in the process of applying for the said tenders and the Appellants were misled to believe that they would win those tenders. It has also been stated that the said tender was not awarded to either of them. As for the evidence in the form of CDR that showed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties the commission first discussed the activities of the relevant parties and their key personnel: (i) M/s Yash Solutions: It is a unit of Yash Ornaments Private Ltd, and is engaged in Jewellery- related work, Manpower Recruitment Agency and Business Auxiliary Service and is based in Bareilly. Mr Praveen Kumar Agarwal is its MD and his wife Ms. Komal Agarwal is a director. Mr. Nitish Agarwal, who is director of Chaitanya Business Outsourcing, is the CEO of M/s Yash Solutions. The firm did not have any experience of soil testing before submitting its response to the tender of 2017. (ii) M/s Satish Kumar: It is a sole proprietorship concern based in Bareilly and stated to be engaged in the retail and wholesale business of food articles such as cereals, milk products, vegetables, etc. Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal is the proprietor of the firm. It may be noted that M/s Satish Kumar had no experience in soil testing work and it has neither any soil testing lab nor any soil testing machine. (iii) M/s Siddhi Vinayak: It is a sole proprietorship concern based in Bareilly and is engaged in the retail and wholesale business of food articles such as prepared food ite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey have any soil testing lab or any soil testing machine. The Commission noted that Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal could not come forth with any justification as to why such false certificates were issued by M/s Yash Solutions to the above concerns. The Commission also noted that the experience certificates issued by M/s Yash Solutions to M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak bore the same date and were issued despite the fact that those entities never had any soil testing experience or experience of working on ICP-OES machine, and these were fake. (viii) The Commission also noted that Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal in his statement before the DG admitted that fake work orders and experience certificates were issued by M/s Yash Solutions to rival bidders' M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak in the 2018 soil testing tenders for Aligarh, Bareilly and Moradabad divisions. However, Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal submitted in his deposition that he did not know why such fake experience certificates and work orders were issued by his company to rival bidders. Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal, in his statement, could not come up with any cogent explanation for issuing such fake certificates and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commission took a view that the invoices so submitted by them were fake. (xiii) The Commission further noted that Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal, in his statement, had admitted that he had submitted fake documents and bid separately for both his concern, M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak, in the 2017 soil testing tenders for Moradabad and 2018 soil testing tenders for Aligarh, Moradabad and Bareilly divisions, just to show that there was enough competition and to avoid cancellation of tenders due to lack of participation. The Commission further noted that the name of M/s Yash Solutions appeared in the affidavits submitted by M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak. Further, the phone number of the authorised signatory of M/s Yash Solutions, i.e. Mr. Rachit Agarwal, appeared in the character certificate issued to Ms. Sangeeta Agarwal of M/s Siddhi Vinayak. The Commission also noted that Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal persistently submitted evasive replies "I do not know" or "I do not remember" and submitted no explanation for the alleged linkages. It is also noted that Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal initially denied knowing Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal of M/s Yash Solutions, however, whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asive replies of "I do not know", when he was questioned about the authorised signatories namely, Mr. Suraj Singh and Mr. Vivek Saxena, employees of M/s Yash Solutions, who had submitted bids in respect of his concerns M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak as well as of rival bidders, namely, M/s Saraswati Sales, in the 2017 and 2018 soil testing tenders. Further, Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal admitted to have known Mr. Nitish Kumar Agarwal (CEO of M/s Yash Solutions and Director of Chaitanya Business Outsourcing) and Mr. Rachit Agarwal (General Manager of M/s Yash Solutions). In his statement before the DG, Mr. Satish Kumar Agrawal admitted to taking Mr. Rachit Agarwal's assistance in completing and submitting the tender documents of both his concerns. (xvi) The Commission, from the above, noted that it clearly comes out to the fore that fake and fabricated documents were arranged/ provided by M/s Yash Solutions, to M/s Satish Kumar, M/s Siddhi Vinayak and M/s Saraswati Sales with a view to ensure their technical eligibility and submission of cover bids in favour of M/s Yash Solutions in the 2017 tenders for Bareilly and Moradabad divisions and in the 2018 tenders for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3(1) of the Act. Issue 2: If the Opposite Parties are found to have contravened the provisions of Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, who are the persons in charge thereof and responsible for the conduct of business of the respective enterprises under Section 48 of the Act? 17. After establishing the contravention by the Opposite Parties, the Commission then proceeded to analyse the conduct of directors/ proprietors of the Opposite Parties, who were directly involved in the activities and affairs of such parties and had full knowledge and played an active role in the anti-competitive conduct and hence, are liable in terms of Section 48 of the Act. The DG in his investigation identified Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor (M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak) liable in terms of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. 18. In regard to Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal of (M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak) the commission noted that he was solely responsible for the conduct of business as well as the decisions taken in respect of both M/s Satish Kumar as well as M/s Siddhi Vinayak, in which his wife Ms. Sangeeta. Agarwal is the Sole Proprietor.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act. Therefore, the Commission found the concerned individuals of the Opposite Parties are liable in terms of the provisions of Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act. 20. The Commission noted that cartelisation, including bid rigging, is a pernicious form of anti-competitive conduct under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. None of the Opposite Parties or their individuals have been able to rebut the evidence found against them by the DG of having indulged in anti-competitive conduct and manipulating the bids/bid rigging in respect of tenders floated by the Department of Agriculture, State of Uttar Pradesh. The Commission gave the finding that certain Opposite Parties and their individuals had also resorted to the production and submission of fake invoices and grant of false certificates for making some of the Opposite Parties eligible for participating in the bid process, so as to effectively act as cover bidders in respect of the winning bidders. Some of the Opposite Parties did not even have prior experience and were later blacklisted. 21. In view of these findings, the Commission held that the Appellants have contravened the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in question and hence zero penalty would arise, the Commission found no merit in the said submission and stated that no narrow interpretation of the relevant turnover can be taken as suggested. The Commission, in this regard, reiterated its decision dated 03.02.2022 in Suo Motu Case No. 2 of 2020 (In Re: Alleged anticompetitive conduct by various bidders in supplying and installation of signages at specified locations of State Bank of India across India): "115. In relation to the contention that turnover derived from the Impugned Tender alone should be considered, it is noted that a bare perusal of the Excel Crop Care judgement makes it clear that nowhere is held or otherwise declared that relevant turnover should be limited to the turnover earned from the specific customer or tender. Such a plea would frustrate the underlying policy objective of deterring the cartelists besides providing them a fertile ground for regulatory arbitrage. For example, if owing to the understanding between the bidders. If some or few bidders have refrained from participating in the particular tender under investigation, the turnover of the said parties from the said tender would obviously be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....over bids to manipulate the tender process. Both premises are found to be misconceived. As per the tender conditions only original documents, including experience certificates from government or semi-government bodies, were admissible for establishing technical eligibility. In the present case, the experience certificate submitted by the appellant was admittedly issued by a private entity, M/s Yash Solutions, and no original documents, as required under the tender, were submitted, this clearly negated any inference of deliberate misrepresentation or intent to qualify technically. 30. Ld. Counsel stated that for a charge under Section 3(1) read with Sections 3(3)(c) and (d) of the Competition Act, 2002, it is essential to establish that the appellant was engaged in an identical or similar line of trade. However, it remains undisputed that the appellant was involved in the retail and wholesale trade of food articles and had neither prior experience nor any engagement in the domain of soil testing, which was the subject matter of the tenders under scrutiny. The appellant had also never been awarded any such tenders in the past. Therefore, the allegation of bid rigging is unsustaina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew favourable to infringer should prevail. (d) Doctrine of proportionality suggest to lean in favour of relevant turnover. Penalty imposed cannot be disproportionate. (e) Doctrine of Purposive Interpretation also leans in favour of relevant turnover. Relationship between nature of offense and benefit derived to be considered, which would lead to penalty on affected/relevant turnover. Like other countries, In India, there is no guidelines to ensure penalty not to be disproportionate. Hence; penalty on total turnover would bring disastrous results. 34. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the reliance placed by the Hon'ble CCI on the decision in Suo Motu Case No. 2 of 2020 is misplaced and misconceived, as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Excel Crop Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India is clear and unambiguous. It was further submitted that the issue in the Suo Motu case pertained to whether the alleged business activity formed part of, or was a sub-set of, an existing business activity-an issue that is distinct from the one involved in the present matter. 35. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Hon'ble Competition Commission of India. (ii) Pass such other(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fir in the interest of justice. Submission of the Respondent 39. The Ld. Counsel for the Commission/Respondent submitted that the appellants, being sole proprietorships engaged solely in the retail and wholesale business of food articles, have no experience, equipment, or infrastructure related to soil testing. Despite this, the appellants submitted fabricated experience certificates issued by M/s Yash Solutions to falsely establish their technical eligibility. During the investigation, Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal admitted that neither of his firms had ever purchased any soil testing machines before or after submitting bids in the tender. Additionally, Mrs. Sangeeta Agarwal confirmed that she only signed documents on behalf of her firm, with all key decisions taken by her husband. These admissions and documentary evidence establish that the appellants lacked bona fide experience in soil testing and deliberately submitted false documents to secure tender eligibility. 40. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that according to the e-bidding records from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized representative of Yash Solutions, was linked to the character certificate of Ms. Sangeeta Agarwal (Proprietor of Appellant No. 2). During deposition, Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal admitted that Mr. Rachit Agarwal assisted in procuring the character certificate and that the documents were connected to Yash Solutions, though he claimed ignorance as to how this occurred. This establishes collusion between the appellants and Yash Solutions. 45. Ld. Counsel further submitted that although Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal initially denied knowing Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal of Yash Solutions, he later admitted, when confronted with Call Detail Records (CDR), to having regular telephonic communication with him during the 2018 tender process for Bareilly and Moradabad. This evidence indicates close coordination between the appellants and Yash Solutions. 46. The Respondent submitted that Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal admitted before the Director General that the Department of Agriculture had blacklisted both his firms for two years due to doubts regarding the genuineness of the documents and bids submitted by them in soil testing tenders. Notably, this blacklisting was never challenged or appealed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons involved. We first have a look at the statement of Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal recorded on 12.01.2021 by the DG, which is extracted below: "M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal (A-1) had submitted its bids in the soil testing tenders of Moradabad Division in the year 2017. It had also submitted bids in the 2018 tenders issued by Bareilly, Moradabad and Aligarh divisions Q.3 What is your role and responsibilities in your firm M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal? A.3. For both M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, I take care of all the business and all the responsibility rests with me only Q.5. Has your Firm ever bid in any tenders floated by Govt. of UP? If yes, please provide details? A.5. Yes, in the year 2017 & 18. Q.6. Please explain your understanding of Government's Soil testing Program? A. 6. No, I was not aware about the soil testing program as it was newly launched. Q.7 Do you or your Firm have any experience in soil testing work? A. 7. No, either of my firms have no any experience in soil testing Q.8 What are the requirements for soil testing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... those bids. Q. 19. I am showing you the "Undertakings submitted by your Firms Satish Kumar Agarwal & Siddhi Vinayak & sons to the Agriculture Department during the tender process for having established a lab for soil testing in Bareilly. Where in Bareilly was your Soil Testing lab situated and what machines were available? A. 19. My both firms namely M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons did not have any lab and other infrastructure which was required for soil testing work Q. 20 I am showing the terms & condition laid down by the Department of Agriculture, Government of U.P for the soil testing work in the Bareilly & Moradabad tenders. A. 20. Yes. I have seen it. Q. 21. In clause no. 24 of the said terms & conditions of the Moradabad tenders, it is categorically mentioned that bidder/ company should have a functional soil testing lab nearest place to Moradabad. As you yourself have admitted on oath above that either of my firms did not have any soil testing laboratory or any other infrastructure related to soil testing work, why did your firms submitted false undertaking along with your tender documents to the Agricult....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tech Scientific Solutions, Ambala Cantt in favour of your Firm M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal for purchase of certain items, which was submitted by your Firm to the Department of Agriculture, Govt. of UP, during the tendering process in the year 2018- 19 for Bareilly and Moradabad divisions. A. 31. Yes, I have seen it. Q. 32. Why were the aforesaid items procured by your firm? A. 32. I do not know. Q. 33. Were the aforesaid Commercial Invoices issued by the seller to your firm? A. 33. Yes. Q. 34. How is the invoice submitted by your firm and that of M/s Yash Ornaments having same time i.e. 02:37 PM? A. 34 I do not know. Q. 35. How is the invoice submitted by your firm and that submitted by M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons in the Bareilly & Moradabad tenders having same time i.e. 02:37 PM? A. 35. I do not know. Q. 36. Who provided the said Invoices to you and why? A. 36. I do not know. Q. 37 I am showing you the letter by Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner(ST) dated 30.06.2020 confirming that against the above said invoices raised by M/s Today Tech Scientific Solutions, Ambala Cantt in fav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... employees suggested me the rates which are to be quoted in the above said tender. Q. 46 Can you tell the names of those employees? A. 46. I do not remember the names of those employees. Q. 47. I am showing you the comparative statement of financial bids for 2017-18 for Moradabad Division, for 2018 for Bareilly Division tender and for 2018-19 tender for Moradabad Divisions. A. 47. Yes, I have seen it Q. 48 Why did you bid separately for M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons in the aforementioned tenders when both firms were in your direct control? A. 48. 1 bid separately for both the firms just to show that there is enough competition and to avoid the cancellation of tenders because of lack of participation of firms. Q. 49. Your firm quoted Rs 146.50 & Rs 98.50 for 12/6 parameters, in the Bareilly tender date of bid opening 18.06.2018, whereas in the Moradabad Tender having date of bid opening 19.06.2018, you quoted Rs 145 & Rs 97 for 12/6 parameters respectively. Why different rates were quoted when the tenders had opened at nearly the same time? A. 49. I have no justification for the same. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Praveen Agarwal. Q. 57. I am showing you CDR of your number 9837758888 which shows that you were in communication with Sh. Praveen Agarwal (Partner of M/s Yash Solutions) during the period of processing of soil testing tenders of Moradabad and Bareilly divisions in 2018. A. 57 Yes, I know Mr. Praveen Agarwal who is in the jewellery business and I admit to having regular interactions with him on telephone. Q 59 Do you know Mr. Nitish Agarwal (CEO of Yash Solutions)? A. 59. Yes, I know Mr. Nitish Agarwal and I am in regular touch with him. Q. 60 I am also showing you CDR of Sh. Rachit Agarwal (Authorised Signatory of M/s Yash Solutions) which shows that you were in regular communication with him during the period of processing of the said tenders. What did you discuss during those calls? A. 60. Yes, I know Mr. Rachit Agarwal and I used to take his help in completing and submitting the tender documents of both my firms. Q.61. Who was your Authorised Signatory in the Bareilly & Moradabad tenders for both of your Firms namely M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons? A. 61. I do not remember. Q. 62 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Sons for two years questioning the genuineness of the documents submitted by my Firms along with my Bids for the soil tenders. Q. 70. Whether you had appealed the backlisted done by U.P Government. A.70. No, as I was well aware that my firms have submitted manipulated documents in these tenders hence, I did not want to escalate the matter further and appeal in the court." 51. It can be seen from the statement on oath and documents on record that: i) Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal was having complete control and responsibility in respect of his firm M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal as well as his other firm M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, in which his wife Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal is the Proprietor. ii) He had submitted bids for both M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, in the soil testing tenders issued by Agriculture Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh Government in the year 2017 & 2018. iii) M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons had submitted Experience Certificate of soil testing work, issued by his rival firm M/s Yash Solutions. Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal had admitted that both his firms had no experience of soil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile number, he admitted having regular interactions with Sh Praveen Kumar Agarwal. He also admitted to be in regular communication with Sh Nitish Agarwal, CEO as well as Sh Rachit Agarwal (GM), of M/s Yash Solutions. He admitted that he used to take Sh Rachit's help in completing and submitting tender documents of both his firms. ix) Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal confessed that he had bid separately for both the firms just to show that there is enough competition and to avoid the cancellation of tenders because of lack of participation of firms. x) Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal also confessed that the Agriculture Department of UP Government had blacklisted both his firms namely M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons questioning the genuineness of the documents submitted by his firms in the soil testing tenders and he had not appealed against that order as he did not want to escalate the matter further and appeal in the court, as he was well aware about the fact that both his firms have submitted manipulated documents in the said tenders. xi) It is seen that despite the fact that neither Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal himself nor any of the firms cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, to ensure that tenders are not cancelled due to lack of bids. 52. Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal in her statement on oath stated that her firm is a contractor/ supplier of vegetables. Her husband manages the entire affairs of her firm and her role is to only sign documents on behalf of the firm as she is the sole proprietor. Relevant extracts from the Statement of Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal, Proprietor of M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, recorded on 28.01.2021by the DG are reproduced below: "Q. 3. What is your role and responsibilities in your firm M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons? A. 3. My role is only to sign essential documents related to the business of my firm M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons. The actual work of the firm including all decisions are taken by my husband Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal Q. 5. Has your Firm ever bid in any tenders floated by Govt, of UP? If yes, please provide details? A. 5. I have no information as the entire affairs of the business of M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons are managed and looked after by my husband Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal. Being the Sole Proprietor of the firm and also its signing authority, my role in the company is only to sign the doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UP, during the tendering process in the year 2018 (Exhibit-14 & 15). A. 32. I do not know as my husband took all decisions and managed the entire affairs of the business of my firm. Q. 50. Why two different bids were submitted separately for M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons in the aforementioned tenders, when both are related concerns? A. 50. I do not know as all decisions in relation to my firm were taken by my husband Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal" 53. It can be seen from the statement on oath and documents on record that: i) Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal stated that her firm, M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, operates as a contractor and supplier of vegetables. She clarified that her husband, Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal, manages all aspects of the firm's operations, including tendering and other related affairs. As the sole proprietor of the firm, her role is limited to signing documents on behalf of M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons. Smt. Agarwal further emphasized that all decisions concerning the business activities of her firm are made by her husband, who is also the sole proprietor of M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal. ii) The statement of Smt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Division (Exhibit-13 & 14). A. 7. Yes, I have seen and admit that I had signed all the above-mentioned documents as an authorised signatory for the above-mentioned firms and submitted to the Agriculture Department of U.P Government. I had signed the documents. Q. 19. Why did you submit bid documents in Moradabad tender in 2017 for M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal and for M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons during 2018? A. 19. Yes, I agree that I had submitted the bid documents for M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal in 2017 for Moradabad and for M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons during 2018 soil testing tender for Moradabad, Bareilly and Aligarh tenders, as per directions of my employer Chaitanya Business Outsourcing/Yash Ornaments Pvt Ltd. Q.21. Do you know any of the Directors/Proprietors/Partners/Employees of any other firms which had submitted bids in the soil testing tenders? A. 21. Yes, I know Sh. Satish Kumar Agarwal of M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal which supplies fruits and vegetables to Army and is also owner of Hotel Bareilly Palace. Q. 22. How did you submit the bids for M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, when you were employed with M/s Chaitanya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n parties is not required. Instead, a probabilistic standard of proof is sufficient, meaning that the existence of a cartel can be inferred from circumstantial evidence or behaviours. The said principle was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, (2020) 16 SCC 615. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in further paras 81 & 84 of Judgment supra has made the following observations: "81. There may not be direct evidence on the basis of which cartelisation or such agreement between the parties can be proved as these agreements are normally entered into in closed doors. The standard of proof which is required is one of probability. 84. Even in the absence of proof of concluded formal agreement, when there are indicators that there was practical cooperation between the parties which knowingly substitute the risk of competition, that would amount to anti- competitive practices." 58. In the present case the evidence is very direct and is proven from documents on record and conduct of the individuals involved making it a clear case of anti-competitive practices. 59. Based on the material on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the contracts are awarded and after that the payment for the purchased tablets is released by the regional offices concerned. 3.4. It was found that right from the year 2002, up to the year 2009, all the four parties used to quote identical rates, excepting for the year 2007. In 2002, Rs 245 was the rate quoted by these four parties and in the year 2005 it was Rs 310 (though the tender was scrapped in this year and the material was purchased from Central Warehousing Corporation @ Rs 290). In November 2005, though the tenders were invited, all the parties had abstained from quoting. In 2007, M/s UPL had quoted the price which was much below the price of other competitors. In 2008, all the parties abstained from quoting. while in 2009 only the three appellants, barring Agrosynth Chemicals Ltd., participated and quoted uniform rate of Rs 388, which was ultimately brought down to Rs 386 after negotiations. It was also found that the tender documents were usually submitted in person and the rates were normally filled with hand." 62. It can be seen that the all the four companies referred to in the Excel Crop Care (supra) were in the same business since 2002, and their bal....