#bid rigging

CCI holds that collusion between HP India and its resellers in Government e-Marketplace (GeM) tenders amounts to a horizontal agreement under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, imposing penalties for cartelization. The ruling clarifies that OEM-reseller arrangements can violate competition law if they eliminate price competition, impacting public procurement integrity.

Rajasthan High Court rules that shared premises, common chartered accountant, and notary between bidders create a rebuttable presumption of conflict of interest under Rule 81(3)(D) of the RTPP Rules, justifying disqualification even without evidence of actual bid rigging. The ruling sets a strict standard for bidder independence in public procurement.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) held 17 electrical contractors guilty of bid rigging in Assam Police tenders, relying on coordinated bidding patterns, shared IP addresses, and sequentially numbered demand drafts as conclusive evidence of collusion. The ruling reinforces that such circumstantial evidence can establish a Section 3(3)(d) violation without direct proof of agreement, imposing cease-and-desist orders on all parties.

CCI ruled that mere parallel bidding or market dominance does not establish a prima facie cartel under Section 3(3)(d) without concrete evidence of collusion between bidders. The decision clarifies that public procurement allegations require proof of concerted action, not just suspicion of unfair pricing.