In Brief
Four manufacturers of Aluminium Phosphide Tablets were alleged to have formed a cartel by submitting identical bids in tenders floated by the Food Corporation of India. The Supreme Court upheld findings of collusive bidding under Section 3(3)(a), (3)(b), and (3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002. On a key issue regarding penalties, the Court held that the penalty should be calculated on 'relevant turnover' (turnover of the affected product) rather than total company turnover, to ensure proportionality and prevent disproportionate penalties on multi-product companies. The Court dismissed appeals of the manufacturers but also partly allowed them regarding penalty quantum by affirming COMPAT's approach of using relevant turnover.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.