Competition Commission of India: In two separate suo motu proceedings arising out of lesser penalty applications, the Commission, comprising Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, and Sweta Kakkad, Anil Agrawal, Deepak Anurag and P. Hemalatha, Members, held that HP India Sales (P) Ltd. facilitated coordination amongst its authorised resellers and functioned as the central enterprise in a hub-and-spoke cartel involving bid rigging, customer allocation and price coordination in relation to the sale and supply of HP Supplies Products through Government e-Marketplace (GeM) tenders.
The Commission further held that a vertical manufacturer-reseller relationship does not insulate an enterprise from liability under Section 3(3) where the OEM facilitates horizontal collusion amongst competing distributors, and that cooperation under the lesser penalty regime under Section 46 mitigates only the quantum of penalty and does not exonerate liability once participation in the cartel is established.
Background
The present proceedings arose from lesser penalty applications filed under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging cartelisation by HP India Sales Private Limited (“HP India”) and its authorised resellers in the sale and supply of HP Supplies Products and Personal Systems Products through Government e-Marketplace (“GeM”) tenders. The products included HP consumables such as ink and toner cartridges and other supplies, as well as laptops, desktops, workstations, notebooks and related accessories.
Based on the lesser penalty applications, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) formed a prima facie view of contravention of Section 3 of the Act and directed an investigation by the Director General (“DG”) under Section 26(1). The investigation covered GeM tenders floated in Delhi for HP Supplies Products and Personal Systems Products. During the investigation, former HP India official Mr. Manoj Grover and Delphi Infosolutions (P) Ltd. also approached the Commission under the lesser penalty provisions.
The DG, after examining tender records, emails, WhatsApp communications, video recordings and statements of officials, found evidence of bid rigging, cover bidding, price coordination and customer allocation amongst HP India and its resellers in GeM tenders. The DG found evidence of coordinated bidding in 29 GeM tenders relating to HP Supplies Products and 7 GeM tenders relating to Personal Systems Products and also identified individuals liable under Section 48 of the Act.
After considering the investigation reports, objections and submissions of the parties, including arguments on penalty and mitigating factors, the Commission proceeded to decide the allegations of cartelisation and liability of HP India, its resellers and concerned individuals under the Competition Act, 2002.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Suo Motu Case No. 08 of 2020 (HP Supplies Products)
The Commission held that HP India acted as the central facilitator of a hub-and-spoke cartel amongst its authorised resellers in GeM tenders for HP Supplies Products. It found that HP India coordinated competing resellers through selective issuance of Manufacturer Authorisation Forms (MAFs), allocation of customers, exchange of commercially sensitive information and arrangement of cover and support bids, thereby facilitating bid rigging in contravention of Sections 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
The Commission rejected the contention that support bids were merely intended to satisfy tender participation requirements, holding that such conduct only created a façade of competition. On the basis of emails, WhatsApp communications, meeting recordings and other documentary evidence, it concluded that the resellers had coordinated their bids and manipulated tender outcomes. It further held the concerned individuals liable under Section 48 where their involvement in the cartel was established.
While determining penalty, the Commission considered the role of each party, duration of the contravention, cooperation and mitigating circumstances. HP India was granted reduction in penalty under the lesser penalty framework, while former HP official Manoj Grover, who independently approached the Commission with disclosures and extended cooperation during investigation, was granted complete waiver of the monetary penalty imposed upon him.
The Commission accordingly directed the contravening parties to cease and desist from anti-competitive conduct, imposed monetary penalties and directed implementation of competition compliance measures.
Suo Motu Case No. 07 of 2020 (HP Personal Systems Products)
The Commission rejected the preliminary objections relating to jurisdiction, investigation, confidentiality and evidentiary issues, holding that enterprises operating at different levels of the supply chain could be treated as competitors where they coordinated their conduct in the same procurement process. On appreciation of the evidence, it found that HP India had facilitated coordination amongst authorised resellers in GeM tenders for Personal Systems Products through arrangements involving cover bids, bid coordination and customer allocation, thereby contravening Sections 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.
However, upon an individual assessment of the role of each reseller, the Commission distinguished legitimate commercial dealings from anti-competitive coordination and declined to record a finding of contravention against parties where sufficient evidence of collusion was not established. Commission also examined the liability of individuals under Section 48 and held liable only those whose consent, connivance or active participation in the contravention was proved.
While imposing penalties, the Commission applied the principle of relevant turnover, considered the nature and gravity of the contravention, duration of involvement, cooperation and lesser penalty disclosures, and granted appropriate reductions wherever applicable. The contravening parties were directed to cease and desist from anti-competitive practices, pay the penalties imposed and implement competition compliance programmes.
[Cartelisation amongst HP India v. HP India Sales (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine CCI 72 and HP India Sales (P) Ltd., In re, 2026 SCC OnLine CCI 73, decided on 13-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ashish Mohan and Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocates;
Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Counsel;
Mr. Rajeev Nair, General Counsel, HP India; Ms. Niyati Ojha, Legal Counsel, HP India;
Mr. Karan S. Chandhiok, Ms. Modulika Bose, Mr. Uday Bali, Mr. Shourya Mitra, Ms. Riddhika Dumane, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Dhirender Singh Bisht, Ms. Sagrika Tanwar, Mr. G R Bhatia, Mr. Abhishek Nair, Mr. Arjun Nihal Singh, Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Akash Kumar, Ms. Saniya Khanna, Mr. Arjun Krishnan, Mr. Ankur Singh, Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Ms. Pritha Banerjee, Mr. Vijay Pujari, Ms. Kajal Sonkar, Mr. Susheel Mahajan, Ms. C. Haritha, Mr. Suman Raj, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Avdhesh Bairwa, Mr. Kartik Nayar, Mr. Saurav Kakroda, Mr. Divyansh Rai, Mr. Anshul Jain, Mr. Aniket Ghosh, Mr. Sarthak Miglani, Ms. Diksha Khullar, Ms. Swati Sharma, Mr. Shashank Gautam, Ms. Sreemoyee Deb, Mr. M. M. Sharma, Mr. Ankit Singh Rajput, Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Kaushal Kumar Singh, Ms. Kokila Kumar, Mr. Vidur Mohan, Ms. Prachi Batra, Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj and Ms. Muskan Narang, Advocates;
Mr. Gagandeep Singh and Mr. Manoj Grover, In-person; Ms. Shalu Kapoor, Sole Proprietor; Mr. Sanjay Rajput, Sole Proprietor; Mr. Pawan Dadhich, Sole Proprietor; Mr. D.S. Rajpoot, Proprietor; Mr. Ajay Chawla, Director; Mr. Aditya Narain Kakkar, Company Representative; and Mr. Rupesh Ratish, Manager.
