The Competition Commission disposed of an application alleging abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements by a pharmaceutical firm and a chemists' association. The Commission held allegations unsubstantiated and closed the matter.
Order closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
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. 44 of 2018
In Re:
Mr. Kuntal Chowdhary 3, Mohishila Colony, Asansol PO: Asansol 3, Distt: Burdwan, West Bengal, India – 713 303. Informant And Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited Atlanta Arcade, Near Leela Hotel, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai Maharashtra, India – 400 059. Opposite Party No. 1 Bengal Chemist and Druggists Association 1st Floor,12 Bonfield Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal, India – 700 001. Opposite Party No. 2 Present: For Informant: Informant-in-Person For OP-1: Mr. Rajeev Mishra, President Mr. Himanshu Ranvah, GM-Legal For OP-2: Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocate Mr. Lalit Mohan, Advocate
CORAM
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Mr. U. C. Nahta Member Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Case No. 44 of 2018
1
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Case No. 44 of 2018
2
but has not received any supplies since then from OP-1 without any explanation or cogent reasons, even though the Informant is still a stockist of OP-1 and its stockistship has not been terminated. It has been further submitted that the Informant made representations before OP-1, vide emails dated 20.12.2017 and 03.01.2018 and finally vide a letter dated 04.02.2018 to the Managing Director of OP-2, but did not receive any response. Rather, the Informant was asked indirectly by OP-1 through a third party to settle the dispute with OP-2. It has been alleged that such conduct of OP-1 has resulted not only in denial of market access and limiting of supply but also has caused financial hardship to the Informant.
Case No. 44 of 2018
3
copy to the OPs. Thereafter, written submissions of OPs and the Informant were received on 02.01.2019 and on 22.01.2019, respectively.
Case No. 44 of 2018
4
himself is a proprietor of a medicine shop and sells products of various pharmaceutical companies. It is standard industry practice that same/ similar formulations/ medicines manufactured by various companies under different brand names are readily available in the market, unless a company has patent over a particular formulation/ medicine. Accordingly, no case of violation of provisions of Section 4 of the Act against OP-1 is made out.
5
Case No. 44 of 2018
6
Case No. 44 of 2018
Sd/(Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson Sd/(U.C. Nahta) Member Sd/(Sangeeta Verma) Member New Delhi Date: 23/05/2019
Case No. 44 of 2018
7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conduct of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited and Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association amounts to contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the applicant is entitled to continuation of supply of medicines and compensation for alleged denial of market access.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Kuntal Chowdhary
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
Bengal Chemist and Druggists Association
Ashok Kumar Gupta
U. C. Nahta
Sangeeta Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
