State Of Haryana vs J. K. Tyre & Industries Limited

On the basis of the investigation by the DG and examination of the material available on record, the Commission finds no contravention of the provisions of the Act by OP-1 and OP-2. In the absence of any finding of contravention against OP-1 and OP-2, the question of holding Dr. Raghupati Singhania and Shri Anant Vardhan Goenka liable under Section 48 of the Act does not arise. Accordingly, no contravention of the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act is made out against Dr. Raghupati Singhania and Shri Anant Vardhan Goenka.

In light of the foregoing discussion and upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, the Commission finds that OP-9 and OP-10 have acted in a concerted manner which amounts to bid rigging, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

The Commission now proceeds to determine and analyse the role and liability of individuals of OP-9 and OP-10 in terms of Section 48 of the Act. As per the Investigation Report, the DG has found Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok of OP-9 and late Shri Amit Agarwal of OP-10 to be liable in terms of Sections 48(1) of the Act for the anti-competitive conduct of OP-9 and OP-10, respectively.

In this regard, the Commission notes that Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok contended that the alleged emails neither amount to cartelisation nor demonstrate the existence or implementation of a horizontal agreement prohibited under Section 3(3) of the Act. Accordingly, in the absence of any finding of contravention against OP-9, the proceedings initiated against him are legally unsustainable. Further, it was prayed by Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok that the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, refrain from imposing any penalty or, alternatively, impose only a nominal penalty on Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok, if considered necessary.

The Commission notes that the email containing bid prices of OP-1 and OP-2 were exchanged between Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok, of OP-9 and late Shri Amit Agarwal of OP-10. This has been found to be evidence of contravention of the provisions of the Act by OP-9 and OP-10. Further, Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok, being the Managing Director of OP-9 was also overall in-charge for conduct of the business of OP-9. Late Shri Amit Agarwal was co-owner of OP-10 and was overall in-charge of the conduct of the business of OP-10. Accordingly, the Commission finds Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok, of OP-9 and late Shri Amit Agarwal of OP-10 to be liable under Section 48(1) of the Act.

The Commission notes that, insofar as the imposition of penalty under Section 48(1) of the Act is concerned, the entire defence advanced by Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok is premised on the contention that OP-9 has not contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. However, based on the investigation conducted by the DG and the examination of the matter available on record, the Commission has already concluded that OP-9 has contravened the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. In view of this finding, the submissions advanced by Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok cannot be accepted.

With regard to the imposition of penalty on late Shri Amit Aggarwal, the Commission notes that the OP-10, vide its application, informed the Commission of the unfortunate demise of Shri Amit Aggarwal on 17.01.2026 and requested that the proceedings against him be closed. The Commission considered the said request and, on humanitarian grounds, vide its order dated 18.03.2026, directed that the proceedings against late Shri Amit Aggarwal stand abated. Accordingly, no further proceedings, including the imposition of any penalty, survive against late Shri Amit Aggarwal.

With respect to quantum of penalty, the Commission notes that OP-9 has submitted that in present case, the alleged conduct pertains solely to a single tender for procurement of radial tyres. Consequently, it submitted that the penalty computation should be limited to revenue/profit from such transaction. Further, the alleged conduct has not resulted in AAEC in the relevant market as OP-1 did not secure the contract in the HP tender. Accordingly, it was prayed by OP-9 that the Commission may impose no penalty or, alternatively, a nominal penalty upon OP-9 and Shri Gadhok, if at all.

Likewise, OP-10 also prayed that it is a small business which operates on a modest scale and does not possess the economic strength capable of influencing any market outcomes. Further, OP-10 submitted that it does not have any revenue based on a specific tyre variant, hence, it was not feasible for it to provide any figures based on relevant turnover. Instead, the Commission may consider that the ‘relevant turnover’ of OP-10 is zero as it did not receive any commission from OP-2 in relation to the services provided for the HP tender in 2013. If the Commission still considers it necessary to impose any monetary penalty, it may consider the mitigating factors and impose only a minimal penalty commensurate to the nature of the contravention.

As per Section 27(b) of the Act, the Commission is empowered to impose such penalty, as it may deem fit which shall be not more than ten per cent of the average of the turnover or income, as the case may be, for the last three preceding FYs, upon each of such person or enterprise which is a party to anti-competitive agreement. In terms of proviso to Section 27(b) of the Act, the Commission, in case any agreement referred to in Section 3 of the Act has been entered into by a cartel, may impose upon each producer, seller, distributor, trader or service provider included in that cartel, a penalty of up to three times of its profit for each year of the continuance of such agreement or ten per cent of its turnover or income, as the case may be, for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher. The Commission, considering the nature of organisations involved in the contravention deems it appropriate not to invoke the proviso of Section 27(b) of the Act.

On 06.03.2024, the Commission notified the Penalty Guidelines, which provide that the Commission shall, for the purposes of determination of penalty, if any, to be imposed under Section 27(b) of the Act, begin its consideration with the ‘relevant turnover’ of the enterprise concerned. For calculating average relevant turnover or average income, the Commission, subject to the facts and circumstances of each case, may consider the relevant turnover or income of three years of the enterprise preceding the year in which the DG’s investigation report is received by the Commission. Provided that, in appropriate cases, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Commission may consider the relevant turnover of three years preceding the contravention. In the instant matter, the contravention has been found based on emails between OP-9 and OP-10 relating to HP tender, the period of which was FY 2013-14.

Further, as per the Penalty Guidelines, where the determination of ‘relevant turnover’ is not feasible, the Commission may consider the global turnover of the enterprise concerned, derived from all products and services, for the purpose of determination of the amount of penalty. The penalty amount is to be determined, having due regard to the various aggravating and mitigating factors mentioned under the said Guidelines. The Commission notes that OP-9 and OP-10 are small enterprises and they have not contravened the Act earlier.

In the light of Section 27 (b) of the Act, provisions of the Penalty Guidelines and mitigating factors mentioned herein above, the Commission decides to impose penalty upon OP-9, OP-10 and individual of OP-9 i.e., Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok, @xx of their average turnover/income, for the period FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14, for which financials have been provided by them. Accordingly, the penalty amount imposed and payable by OP-9, OP-10 and individual of OP-9 are as under:

Penalty on OPs and Individual Persons liable under Section 48 of the Act

Accordingly, the Commission directs the aforementioned OPs and their individuals to deposit the penalty amount within 60 days of receipt of this order.

Furthermore, the Commission, in terms of Section 27 (a) of the Act, directs OP-9, OP-10 and Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok who has been held liable in terms of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act to cease and desist from indulging in practices which have been found in the present order to be in contravention of provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, as detailed in the earlier part of the present order.

Before parting with the order, the Commission deems it appropriate to deal with the request of the parties seeking confidentiality over certain documents/information filed by them under Regulation 36 of the General Regulations, 2024. Considering the grounds given by the parties for the grant of confidential treatment, the Commission grants confidentiality to such documents / data / information in terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations, 2024, subject to Section 57 of the Act, for a period of three years from the date of passing of this order. It is however made clear that nothing disclosed in the public version of this order shall be deemed to be confidential or deemed to have been granted confidentiality, as the same have been used and disclosed for purposes of the Act in terms of the provisions contained in Section 57 thereof. Accordingly, the Commission directs that two versions of the present order may be issued i.e. public version and confidential version. The public version shall be served upon Informant, OP-1, OP-2, OP-9 and OP-10 and their respective individual/s and a confidential version shall be shared with the named OPs in the confidentiality ring viz. OP-1, OP-2, OP-9 and OP-10, through members of the confidentiality ring. The public version of the order shall be prepared keeping in mind the confidentiality requests and the provisions of Section 57 of the Act read with Regulation 36 of the General Regulations, 2024. For convenience, it is directed that the confidential version of this order may be provided to such ring members/ individuals through one of the ring members, who may then share the same with the other ring members nominated by the concerned named OPs. OP-9, is directed to serve a copy of the confidential version of this order upon their respective individual upon whom penalty has been imposed for the purpose of compliance of this order.

Regarding reference made by the DG to the Commission for proceeding under Section 43 of the Act against OP-1, the Commission shall decide the same separately.

Any pending application(s) filed by the parties shall be deemed to be disposed of in light of the above order.

Accordingly, the Secretary is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Informant, OP-1, OP-2, OP-9, OP-10 and Shri Vidya Sagar Gadhok and authorised representative of late Shri Amit Agarwal.

Sd/-(Ravneet Kaur) Chairperson Sd/-(Sweta Kakkad) Member Sd/-(Deepak Anurag) Member