Aditya Tripathi Vs Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Competition Commission of India)
The information was filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 by a furniture manufacturer and multiple public procuring entities. The Informants alleged that public procurement in the institutional furniture market had been systematically manipulated through tender documents containing technical specifications, line drawings, and photographs that allegedly replicated the manufacturer’s proprietary product catalogue. According to the Informants, these tailor-made specifications foreclosed competition, denied market access to rival manufacturers, and resulted in appreciable adverse effects on competition. They relied on market analysis for 2023 and 2024, claiming that the manufacturer secured a high proportion of contracts while competitors recorded very low or no success rates. They also alleged that the statistical variance in tender outcomes indicated institutional bias or anti-competitive agreements, causing higher procurement costs and harming consumer and taxpayer interests.
The Informants defined the relevant market as “Public Procurement of Furniture in India” and alleged that the manufacturer abused its dominant position by influencing tender terms, denying market access to competing manufacturers, and imposing unfair conditions through brand-specific specifications. They further alleged collusion between the manufacturer and one of the procuring entities, claiming that such conduct amounted to bid rigging and refusal to deal in violation of Sections 3(3)(d) and 3(4) of the Act. They sought an investigation by the Director General, seizure of communications and draft tender documents, discontinuation of proprietary specifications in public tenders, imposition of penalties, and interim relief directing suspension and modification of pending tenders.
