Weekly Browser A-
on
record
it
appeared
that
Co.
did
not
stop
supplying
medicines
to
informant,
rather^
it
insisted
on
advance
payment
in
view
of
earlier
incidents
of
delayed
payments.^
Further,
stockistship
of
informant
was
still
subsisting
with
co.,
and
co.^
undertook
to
supply
medicines
on
order
placed
by
informant
on
receipt
of^
advance
payment.
It
was
also
noted
that
informant
had
been
doing
business
for
years
without
any^
complaint
regarding
any
cash
donation/NOC
and
there
was
no
cogent
evidence^
to
prove
that
BCDA
had
indulged
in
issuing
NOC
or
that
it
had
in
fluenced -
commercial
decision
of
co.
in
dealing
with
informant.
Informant
also
failed
to
submit
alleged
request
of
BCDA
for
NOC
from
anoth
er -
pharma-company
pertaining
to
2017
either
at
time
of
filing
of
information
or^
later
on.
Thus,
it
appeared
to
be
an
afterthought
on
part
of
informant
by
which^
he
tried
to
give
impression
of
a
commercial
dispute
between
him
and
pharma-Co.^
or
a
colour
of
competition
issue.
Thus,
no
case
of
contravention
of^
provisions
of
Act
was
made
out
against
company
and
BCDA.
Withdrawal of discount by cement manufacturer wasn’t an anti-
competitive act, NCLAT upheld CCI’s order
K.M. Chakrapani v. Competition Commission of India [2019] 106
taxmann.com 155 (NCL-AT)
In
the
instant
case,
the
Appellants
who
were
dealers
in
cement
filed
information
alleging^
that
the
Kerala
Cement
Dealers
Association’
(‘KCDA)
was
interrupting
or^
blocking
supply
of
cement
to
informant
by
Ramco,
cement
manufactur
er, -
as
the
appellant
ignored
instruction
of
KCDA
to
sell
cement
at
an
unjust
price^
and
KCDA
also
terminated
their
dealership.
The
Director
General
(DG)
found^
that
the
KCDA
had
no
role
in
regard
to
supply
of
cement
by
cement
manufacturers^
to
dealers,
which
purely
depended
on
market
considerations.
The^
Commission
by
impugned
order
closed
matter
holding
that
there
was
no^
evidence
to
persuasively
establish
indulgence
into
any
anti-competitive
conduct^
covered
under
provisions
of
Act.
On
Appeal,
it
was
held
that,
since
there
was
no
meeting
of
minds
between
KCDA^
and
cement
manufacturers
in
regard
to
grant
or
termination
of
deal
ership, -
the
Commission
was
justified
in
arriving
at
conclusion
that
no
case
of
contravention^
of
section
3
of
the
Competition
Act,
2002
was
made
out.
The
Appellate
Tribunal
further
ruled
that
no
infirmity
was
found
in
order
of
the^
Commission
as
there
were
number
of
cement
brands
and
thousands
of
dealers^
across
Kerala,
and
therefore,
withdrawal
of
discounts
by
a
cement
manufacturer^
would
not
be
a
proof
of
an
anti-competitive
agreement.