Shri Kailash Chander Sharma v. Coal India Limited & Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission dismissed an information alleging abuse of dominant position by Coal India Ltd. and CIMFR. The Commission held that tender eligibility criteria like turnover and earnest money deposits were valid consumer choices and did not create entry barriers or contravene Section 4 of the Act.
What did the court decide?
Information ordered to be closed; no direction to pay compensation or stop tender process.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 40 of 2016
In re :
Shri Kailash Chander Sharma Informant And 1. Coal India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 1 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 2 3. Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research Opposite Party No. 3 4. Director, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research Opposite Party No.4 CORAM Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson Mr. S. L. Bunker Member Mr. Sudhir Mital Member Mr. U. C. Nahta Member
Case No. 40 of 2016 Page 1 of 9
Dr. M. S. Sahoo Member
Justice G. P. Mittal Member
- Appearances: Shri F. K. Jha, Advocate for the Informant alongwith Shri Kailash Chander Sharma, Informant-in-person.
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
- The information in the present case has been filed by Shri Kailash Chander Sharma (the ‘Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) against Coal India Ltd. (the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’/ ‘OP-1’/ ‘CIL’); Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CIL (the ‘Opposite Party No. 2’/ ‘OP-2’); Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (the ‘Opposite Party No. 3’/ ‘OP-3’/ ‘CIMFR’) and Director, CIMFR (the ‘Opposite Party No. 4’/ ‘OP-4’) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the eligibility conditions in the tender notice, including minimum business turnover and earnest money deposit, amounted to an abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Act?
Whether the tender process prevented effective competition in the market for coal sample collection services?
Whether information was in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act and required action under Section 26(2)?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shri Kailash Chander Sharma
- respondent
Coal India Ltd.
- respondent
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal India Ltd.
- respondent
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
- respondent
Director, Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court