Case Law Details
Ravi Pal Vs All India Sugar Trade Association (AISTA) (CCI)
After appreciation of the allegations of the Informant and documents submitted including the oral submissions made by the Informant, the Commission is of the view that no evidence has been provided by the Informant to show that there was any meeting of minds between the OPs to establish correlation between bids submitted in any specific tender with the alleged sugar prices circulated over the WhatsApp group. Presumptive inference and analysis provided by the Informant cannot be the basis for forming a prima facie opinion as to order investigation in the matter. Therefore, the Commission observes that, based on the facts stated in the information and the evidence adduced by the Informant, a prima facie case under Section 26(1) of the Act is not made out against the OPs.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Act against the OPs. Consequently, no case arises for consideration of interim relief claimed by the Informant under Section 33 of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. Present information has been filed by Mr. Ravi Pal (hereinafter, the “Informant”) under Sectio19(1)(a) of the Competition Act 2002 (hereinafter, the “Act”) al eging contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act by All India Sugar Trade Association (hereinafter, “OP-1″) and its Chairman, Mr. Praful Jagjivandas Vithalani (hereinafter, “O P-2″), with other unknown persons, collectively referred to as “Opposite Parties/OPs”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
