Satish Kumar Agarwal Vs Competition Commission of India (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that collusive bidding and bid rigging duly proved on the basis of evidence such as common IP usage; use of fake and fabricated documents. Thus, order of commission holding appellant guilty u/s. 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) upheld.
Facts- This appeal arises from the final order and judgment passed by the Competition Commission of India on 04.04.2022 under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002, wherein the Commission held that M/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.
Conclusion- It is absolutely clear from the findings based on the evidence tendered by Appellants and documents on record that Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal, was solely responsible for decisions of both his firms (M/s Satish Kumar and M/s Siddhi Vinayak), he had admitted to submitting bids on behalf of both entities despite lacking infrastructure or experience; solely to create a false appearance of competition and support Yash Solutions. The DG’s investigation, corroborated by admissions and evidence such as common IP usage; use of fake and fabricated documents; prove bid rigging in collusion with Yash Solutions and submission of cover bids to support the bid of Yash Solutions. Based on the overwhelming evidence against the appellants the Commission found them violative of Section 3(1) read with Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act.
