Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Uday B. Bhatt Vs Sarfarazbhai Rafique Bhai Ravani (Competition Commission of India)
Appeal Number : Case No. 20 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 05/06/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Uday B. Bhatt Vs Sarfarazbhai Rafique Bhai Ravani (Competition Commission of India)

In the case of Uday B. Bhatt Vs Sarfarazbhai Rafique Bhai Ravani before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the Informant, representing the Ship Recycling Industries Association (SRIA), alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by several individuals acting as intermediaries in the scrap material market. The Informant claimed that these intermediaries were spreading false rumors through WhatsApp groups, manipulating prices, and potentially abusing their dominant position in the market. However, the CCI found no evidence of cartelization based on the spreading of false rumors or misinformation.

The Informant, Uday B. Bhatt, alleged that members of the SRIA, primarily based in Gujarat, were involved in supplying scrap iron and other materials obtained through ship recycling activities. According to the Informant, the accused individuals, referred to as OPs, were acting as intermediaries and spreading false rumors about price changes in the market through WhatsApp groups. This alleged manipulation of prices adversely affected both sellers and customers.

In response to the allegations, the Commission considered the evidence submitted by the Informant, including an FIR and newspaper articles. However, the Commission found that this evidence did not establish cartelization by the OPs. Despite the spreading of false rumors and misinformation, the Commission noted that the market involved multiple buyers and sellers, with prices determined through negotiation on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the Commission concluded that mere spreading of false rumors or misinformation did not constitute cartelization.

Furthermore, the Commission determined that the provisions of the Act did not provide for inquiry into cases of joint or collective dominance, as alleged by the Informant. As a result, the Commission found no prima facie case of violation of Section 4 of the Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031