Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Apaar Infratech Private Limited Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (Competition Commission of India)
Appeal Number : Case No. 24 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/08/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Apaar Infratech Private Limited Vs Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (Competition Commission of India)

In the present case, looking at the nature of averments and allegations, the relevant product market in the present case may be taken as “Crystalline Durability Admixture (CDA) in HIPs”. CDA as a waterproofing material used in any civil structure involving cement/concrete in HIPs, such as expressways, dams, hydro or thermal power projects, etc. Furthermore, HIPs are not limited to the State of Maharashtra and are also being developed all over the country. Therefore, the demand for CDA is not restricted to the State of Maharashtra, and hence, the relevant geographic market appears to be whole of India. Further, the Informant has submitted in the Information that it had supplied the Xypex CDA product to other smaller projects in India as well. Therefore, the relevant market may be delineated as “Market for procurement of Crystalline Durability Admixture (CDA) in HIPs in India”.

As noted earlier, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (OP-1) is a corporation established and fully owned by the Government of Maharashtra, mainly dealing with the properties and assets comprising movables and immovables, including land, road projects, flyover projects, toll collection rights and works under construction vested with the State Government and under the control of the Public Works Department. These have been subsequently transferred to OP-1. But OP-1 is responsible for the development of HIPs in the State of Maharashtra only, and not all over India. There are many public and private sector companies such as National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Larsen & Toubro Infrastructure Development Projects Limited, etc. in India that are presently involved in developing numerous HIPs across India. Thus, OP-1 cannot be said to be the dominant player in the relevant market delineated supra.

 In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the opinion that no case of contravention of the provisions of the Act is made out against OPs, and the matter is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/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.

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