HP India GeM bid rigging CCI
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

The Commission held that an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), even though not itself participating as a bidder in public procurement, can incur liability under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 where it actively facilitates coordination amongst competing downstream resellers through exchange of commercially sensitive information, selective issuance of Manufacturer Authorisation Forms (MAFs), allocation of customers, coordination of bids and arrangement of cover bids. The Commission further held that the conduct of HP India and the resellers amounted to a contravention of the provisions relating to anti-competitive agreements and bid rigging under the Act.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“Merely because no provision in the Act makes the transaction void or says that no title in the property passes to the purchaser in case there is contravention of the provisions of Section 31, will be of no avail. That does not validate the transfer referred to in Section 31, which is not backed by “previous” permission of the RBI.”

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Refusing to hold an action instituted under section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as an action in rem,