The Competition Commission defined the relevant market for industrial bearings in India, assessed the respondent's market share, and found no dominance in its absence, ordering the matter closed without further examination of the alleged abuse.
The matter is ordered to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act as there is no prima facie case of contravention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 72 of 2016
In Re: M/s Shah Associates Informant And Timken India Limited Opposite Party CORAM Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson Mr. S. L. Bunker Member Mr. Sudhir Mital Member Mr. Augustine Peter Member Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal Member
Appearances during the preliminary conference held on 22nd November, 2016: For the Informant : None For the Opposite Party Mr. S. P. Deo, Advocate Ms. Radhika Seth, Advocate Mr. Tanveer Verma, Advocate
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 1 of 8
Mr. Kaushik Laik, Advocate Mr. Aditya Roy, GM (Sales) Mr. Vinit Mangrulkar, Head (Sales)
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 2 of 8
Vide letter dated 14th May, 2009, the Opposite Party further appointed the Informant, having offices in Maharashtra and Gujarat, as its sole channel partner for oil and gas segment, including ONGC, in the Western and Eastern parts of India. The Informant has claimed that it always brought minimum fifty percent of orders for any given tender floated by ONGC. The Informant is stated to have imported bearings from the Opposite Party specifically for oil and gas industry and to have stocked the same for immediate supply to customers as and when required.
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 3 of 8
the Informant, vide another e-mail dated 29th June, 2015, the Opposite Party objected to such participation and asked the Informant not to send the hard copy of the offer to ONGC. As a result, the Informant could not submit the necessary documents to ONGC.
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 4 of 8
condition stipulated on the bidders in the tender document; and (d) the Opposite Party has concerns regarding supply of spurious products by the Informant and the same was the reason to restrict it from participating in the ONGC tenders. Upon hearing the Opposite Party, the Commission directed it to file the details of market share in India of different manufacturers of bearings and a copy of ONGC tender document. Accordingly, the Opposite Party filed the said data on 25th November 2016.
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 5 of 8
tenders were for procurement of different categories of industrial bearings, the same is taken as the focal product in the instant case. Bearings, also known as anti-friction components are used in a variety of applications in automobiles, pumps, gearboxes, heavy earth-moving equipments and other industrial sectors. All the aforementioned sectors, other than automotive sector, can be broadly categorized as industrial. Further, as per the submissions made during the preliminary conference, all the prominent players in India appear to manufacture different types of industrial bearings supplied/used in India. Thus, in the absence of any difference brought out by the Informant regarding the different kinds of bearings and the fact that a number of players are engaged in the manufacture and/or sale of various types of industrial bearings, the Commission does not find it necessary to narrow down the relevant product market to any particular type or class of industrial bearings. Accordingly, the relevant product market is taken as the ‘ market for industrial bearings ’. As regards the relevant geographic market, it is observed that the manufacturers of bearings can supply the same to all customers located across India. As per the details provided with the information, even the bidders who participated in the tenders floated by ONGC are from different locations i.e. Mumbai, Kolkata and Baroda. Further, as per the data on bearings compiled by Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Pvt. Ltd. (CMIE) Industrial Outlook, more than 40% of the demand for bearings in India is met through imports. These factors suggest that the geographic market for industrial bearings is not limited to any region/(s) but the whole of India. Therefore, the relevant geographic market in the instant case is taken as ‘ India ’. In view of the above, the relevant market in the instant matter is defined as ‘ market for industrial bearings in India ’.
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 7 of 8
conduct culpable under the provisions of the Act, the Commission does not find it necessary to examine the matter further.
Sd/(Devender Kumar Sikri) Chairperson
Sd/(S. L. Bunker) Member
Sd/(Sudhir Mital) Member
Sd/(Augustine Peter) Member
Sd/New Delhi (Justice G. P. Mittal) Date: 31/01/2017 Member
Case No. 72 of 2016 Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent enjoys a dominant position in the relevant market for industrial bearings in India.
Whether the refusal to authorise participation in ONGC tenders by an authorised distributor constitutes an abuse of dominant position under Section 4.
Whether there exists a prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act to proceed further.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Shah Associates
Timken India Limited
Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri
Mr. S. L. Bunker
Mr. Sudhir Mital
Mr. Augustine Peter
Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
