The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed allegations of bid rigging and abuse of dominance against Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and several public procuring entities.
It held that the similarity between tender specifications and Godrej's products, by itself, was not enough to establish collusion or anti-competitive conduct.
A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag passed the order.
The Commission observed, "Even if certain specifications correspond with products manufactured by OP-1, such circumstance, by itself, cannot give rise to an inference of collusion or anti-competitive conduct attributable to OP-1."
Two Advocates had approached the Commission against Godrej and several public authorities, including the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Airports Authority of India, and the Delhi Public Works Department.
They alleged that tender documents reproduced Godrej's proprietary technical specifications, drawings, and photographs, effectively tailoring procurement conditions in its favour and denying market access to rival manufacturers.
The informants also relied on tender data from 2023 and 2024 to claim that Godrej had a high success rate in public tenders while several competitors were consistently excluded. They sought an investigation into the alleged collusion and interim relief against pending tenders containing Godrej's proprietary specifications.
The competition watchdog defined the relevant market as the market for the supply of institutional furniture in India. Referring to publicly available material, it noted that Godrej Interio had around a 15% share of the market and that several other manufacturers were active.
It therefore held that Godrej did not appear to be dominant, making the allegation of abuse of dominance unsustainable.
On the allegation of bid rigging, the Commission observed, "The allegations are founded principally on the assertion that the procuring entities framed specifications favouring OP-1. Mere participation by OP-1 in such tenders, in absence of evidence of its involvement in framing tender conditions or collusion with competing bidders, does not establish bid rigging within the meaning of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act."
The Commission also found no material indicating any anti-competitive agreement, coordinated bidding, or exchange of commercially sensitive information.
It further noted that the tender analysis relied upon by the informants contained computational inconsistencies, raising concerns about the reliability of the data and the conclusions drawn from it.
Finding no prima facie contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, the Commission closed the case.