Klassy Enterprises Vs Competition Commission of India (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that cartelisation and bid rigging/ collusive bidding in tender is clearly established in public welfare tender by common IP address and identical bidding. Accordingly, penalty for being engaged in bid rigging and cartelisation duly imposed.
Facts- The present appeal has been filed by Klassy Enterprises (Earlier Klassy Computers) (the Appellant), u/s. 53B of the Competition Act, 2002, challenging the order of the Competition Commission of India dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Respondent Commission under Section 27 of the Act whereby the commission has hold the appellant guilty of anti-competitive conduct and bid rigging pertaining the tender floated by respondent No.5, for supply of Picofall-cum-Sewing machines and further imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- upon the appellant and other two respondents.
Conclusion- Held that the direct evidence of formation of any cartelization or bid rigging is seldom available. The conspiracies with regard to the such illegal acts are hatched in isolation and executed with precision and therefore it would only the circumstances by which the formation of cartelization or bid rigging may be inferred. The strong evidence of the close association of the Appellant with Respondent No. 3 and 4 and submission of the bids by using the same IP address of the Appellant and their close association on phone calls as well as through the CDR records and the fact that the EMD of the Respondent No.3 and 4 was managed by the appellant, clearly establishes that they were not fairly competitive with each other and rather they have formed a cartelization in order to bid rigging.
