Case Law Details
Virendra Kumar Singh Vs Nandal Finance & Leasing Private Limited (Competition Commission of India)
As regards the allegation of interconnection between the bidders on the basis that one of the directors is common in the group companies of both the Opposite Parties, the Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, observes that merely having common directors/partners may not, ipso facto, give rise to anti-competitive concerns, in the absence of other material factors to indicate that such common relationship facilitated a few entities to come together and manipulate the bid process. The Commission recently, vide its order dated 04.04.2022, in Case No. 25 of 2021 held that “It may not be entirely uncommon, where a common Promoter/Director acts as a link between two entities, to facilitate anti-competitive behaviour. However, there is no presumption that it has to be that way at all times; instead it will depend upon the attendant factual matrix. Thus, the Commission is of the view that merely having common business linkages between the bidders as projected by the Informant, in itself, cannot be the sole basis to suggest meeting of minds or assentio mentium between the bidders in the bidding process.”
With regard to other allegations qua the disinvestment process, the Commission observes that the disinvestment of CEL has been impugned by the Informant, which is a policy decision of GoI, and the Commission is not the appropriate forum to determine the merits of such disinvestment in relation to issues such as the adequacy of Reserve Price. With regard to the allegation of Nandal not being eligible to bid on account of proceedings before Hon’ble NCLAT involving the said company, the Commission observes that the issue of eligibility falls within the domain of DIPAM.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case of contravention of any of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act against the Opposite Parties and therefore, the matter be closed forthwith under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises, and the same is also rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
