The CCI, by way of its order dated June 28, 2016 held that M/s
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., M/s Betul Oils Ltd and M/s Ganganagar
Commodity Ltd. were not in contravention of the provisions of
sections 3 and 4 of the Act as alleged by Shri Nirmal Kumar
Manshani (Informant). The Informant stated that the conduct of the
Opposite Parties appeared to be that of a cartel with regard to
trading of Guar Seeds and Guar Gum in various commodity exchanges
in India. The Informant alleged that the OPs have inflated the
prices of Guar Seeds and Guar Gum by artificially increasing the
demand through self-trading, circular trading etc. which caused
huge loss to traders, hedgers and farmers.
Investigation report by Director General ('DG'),
concluded that OPs contravened the provisions of section 3(3)(a)
and 3(3)(b) read with section 3(1) of the Act on the basis of
various evidence collected like calculation sheet depicting
distribution of profits, e-mail exchanged between M/s Ruchi Soya
Industries Ltd. and M/s Betul Oils Ltd and, evidence of a common
employee being entrusted to manage the guar related business
activities of both the groups establishing meeting of minds between
the two groups.
Allegations against M/s Ganganagar Commodity Ltd could not be
substantiated by facts and evidence gathered during
The Commission observed that though there appeared to be an
agreement indicating collusion or coordination between OPs that was
not decisive of contravention of the provisions of the Competition
Act unless such agreement or arrangement determines the prices of
the commodity in question or otherwise controls/ limits the
supplies thereof etc. The appreciable adverse effect arising or
likely to arise out of such conduct needs to be shown in the
markets in India particularly when the parties strenuously rebut
the statutory presumption. The Commission noted that it was not the
quantity but the quality of evidence that matters. It was a
time-honored principle that evidence must be weighed and not
counted. The test is whether the evidence is cogent, credible and
trustworthy or otherwise. The Commission thus noted that mere
collusion or coordination per se will not be sufficient to reach a
finding of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) read
with Section 3(3) of the Competition Act.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should
be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in
this article are solely of the authors of this article.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In the wake of liberalization and privatization that was triggered in India in early nineties, a realization gathered momentum that the existing Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 was not equipped adequately enough to tackle the competition aspect of the Indian economy.
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 was passed by the Indian Parliament in order to repeal and replace The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).