Ms. Sanyogita Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined an Information alleging anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominant position by HPCL regarding an LPG transportation tender. Finding no evidence of market dominance and a lack of specific allegations against other public sector competitors, the Commission closed the case.
What did the court decide?
The Information is ordered to be closed forthwith.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 33 of 2021
In Re:
| Ms. Sanyogita Singh 1stFloor, Galaxy Tower, Adjoining to KD Tower Block – D, Sector – 44 |
||
|---|---|---|
| Noida – 201301. | Informant | |
| And | ||
| 1. | Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited HPCL, Loni, LPG RO, Village Tilla, Shahabhjpur |
|
| P.O. Loni, District Ghaziabad – 201 102 | ||
| Uttar Pradesh | Opposite Party No. 1 | |
| 2. | Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited | |
| (Central Procurement Organization – Mktg.) 9thFloor, Marathon Futurex Building, ‘A Wing’ |
||
| Mafatlal Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Marg | ||
| Mumbai – 400 013, Maharashtra | Opposite Party No. 2 | |
| 3. | Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited 3rd Floor, UCO Bank Building |
|
| Parliament Street New Delhi – 110 001 | Opposite Party No. 3 | |
| 4. | Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra |
Opposite Party No. 4 |
| 5. | Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited | |
| Hindustan Bhawan, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001, Maharashtra |
Opposite Party No. 5 | |
| 6. | The Chairman & Managing Director Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Hindustan Bhawan, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001, Maharashtra |
Opposite Party No. 6 |
| 7. | Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi – 110 001 |
Opposite Party No. 7 |
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Opposite Parties (HPCL) held a dominant position in the relevant market for procurement of service of transportation of packed LPG cylinders by road.
Whether the conduct of selecting non-distributor transporters and alleged cartelization in the tender process amounted to a violation of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.
Whether an anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position was made out requiring intervention under the Competition Act.
Coram
Ashok Kumar Gupta
Sangeeta Verma
Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court