Fake Certificates, Common IP & Cover Bids Prove Collusion: NCLAT Upholds CCI’s Order Against Appellant [Read Order]
The Tribunal noted that fake certificates, fabricated invoices, and common IP addresses established collusion with Yash Solutions and others. The ruling reinforces strict liability under Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002, read with Section 3(1).
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, in a recent judgment, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order. The CCI had found the appellants guilty of bid‑rigging and collusive bidding in soil testing tenders floated by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh, during 2017–2018.
The proceedings originated from a complaint alleging cartelisation in two e‑tenders for soil sample testing in Bareilly and Moradabad. The complaint pointed to coordinated bidding by multiple entities, including Yash Solutions, Satish Kumar Agarwal, Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, Saraswati Sales Corporation, and Austere Systems. The CCI, after directing a detailed investigation by the Director General (DG), concluded that the parties had indulged in cover bidding, bid rotation, and collusive practices to manipulate tender outcomes.
The DG’s report revealed several red flags, like common IP addresses were used to submit bids for Bareilly and Moradabad tenders in 2018 by Yash Solutions, Satish Kumar, Siddhi Vinayak, and Saraswati Sales. Fake experience certificates and invoices were issued by Yash Solutions to Satish Kumar and Siddhi Vinayak, despite their lack of soil testing facilities or prior experience.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
Employees of Yash Solutions acted as authorised signatories for rival bidders, including Satish Kumar and Siddhi Vinayak, further evidencing collusion.Identical invoices for soil testing machines and consumables were submitted by multiple bidders, later confirmed to be fabricated by suppliers.
The DG concluded that the appellants, along with Yash Solutions and others, had contravened Sections 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. Additionally, Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal was held personally liable under Section 48 for his role in orchestrating the collusion.
The appellants argued that they were misled by Yash Solutions and its employees, who managed the tender process on their behalf. They claimed no independent involvement in soil testing and highlighted their nil turnover in the sector, contending that penalties under Section 27 should not apply. They also sought to rely on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Excel Corp Ltd. v. CCI (2017), which emphasised relevant turnover as the basis for penalty computation.
The three-member bench comprising Rakesh Kumar Jain (Judicial Member), Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member) and Indevar Pandey (Technical Member) rejected these arguments, noting that the appellants knowingly submitted fabricated documents to qualify for tenders.
Also, evidence of shared IP addresses, identical invoices, and coordinated bidding demonstrated active collusion. And the plea of being misled was untenable, as Mr. Satish Kumar Agarwal admitted to using Yash Solutions’ assistance and failed to contest the Department of Agriculture’s blacklisting of his concerns.
The Tribunal held that the appellants’ conduct squarely fell within the ambit of bid‑rigging and collusive bidding prohibited under the Act. It affirmed the CCI’s findings and penalties, underscoring that cartelisation undermines competitive tendering and public procurement integrity.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
