CCI Finds No Abuse of Dominant Position by Arthur Flury India In Railway Electrification Component Supply

The Competition Commission of India has closed a complaint accusing Arthur Flury India Pvt. Ltd., the Indian arm of a Switzerland-based engineering firm, of profiteering and discriminatory pricing in the supply of Short Neutral Section Assemblies used in railway electrification systems, after finding no prima facie abuse of dominance.

The order, dated April 7, 2026, was passed by a bench comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag. The complaint had been filed by Kshitij Srivastava.

According to the informant, the company secured approval as an indigenous supplier on May 6, 2023 and, in practice, became the only eligible bidder in most railway tenders. Prices, he alleged, rose sharply during this period, even as lower rates were quoted to EPC contractors operating outside the same procurement constraints.

Examining the case, the Commission defined the relevant market as that for Short Neutral Section Assemblies in India. It noted that Arthur Flury India was dominant between March 6, 2023 and December 31, 2024, but emphasised that this by itself does not establish a violation.

The Commission pointed out that product specifications were set by the Research Designs and Standards Organisation, leaving suppliers with no role in shaping procurement design to their advantage.

As for pricing, the order refers to a mix of factors, currency movements, transport costs, order size, and logistics that could account for variations across tenders.

On the allegation of dual pricing, the Commission drew a distinction between Indian Railways and EPC contractors. While the former operates within RDSO guidelines and Make in India restrictions, private contractors are free to source from the market and negotiate terms independently.

It also recorded that new entrants were not shut out. In fact, the approval of another vendor in December 2024 coincided with a fall in prices, which the Commission viewed as a sign of competition benefiting buyers.

With no prima facie contravention made out, the Commission ordered the case to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.