In Re: Chief Materials Manager, North ... vs Moulded Fibreglass Products And Others on 4 April, 2022

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Competition Commission of India

In Re: Chief Materials Manager, North ... vs Moulded Fibreglass Products And Others on 4 April, 2022

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018

In re:

Chief Materials Manager, North Western Railway Informant

And

Moulded Fibreglass Products Opposite Party No. 1
Power Mould Opposite Party No. 2
Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 3
Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. Opposite Party No. 4
M/s Anju Techno Industries Opposite Party No. 5
Calstar Steel Limited Opposite Party No. 6
Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 7
Polymer Products of India Ltd. Opposite Party No. 8
M/s Micro Engineers Opposite Party No. 9
Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India
Opposite Party No. 10
Ltd.)
Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 11

CORAM

Ashok Kumar Gupta
Chairperson

Sangeeta Verma
Member

Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi
Member

Present:

For Chief Materials Manager, North Western Railway : None

For Moulded Fibreglass Products, Black Burn and Co. : Mr. Rahul Singh, Mr. Pranjal
Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Alok Somani, Director of Black Burn Prateek and Mr. Tanveer
and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Verma, Advocates

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 1
For Power Mould, Polyset Plastics Private Ltd., M/s Anju : Dr. Harsh Surana, Advocate
Techno Industries, Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director of
Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and Partner of Power Mould
and M/s Anju Techno Industries, and Ms. Shanta Sohoni,
employee at Polyset Plastics Private Ltd.

For Calstar Steel Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director : Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director of
of Calstar Steel Ltd. Calstar Steel Ltd., in-person

For Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of : Mr. Rohan Arora, Ms. Shweta
Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Rajeev Dhudani, Consultant/ Shroff Chopra and Mr. Kshitij
Adviser at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Rajesh R., Sharma, Advocates
Senior Manager (Operations) at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.

For Polymer Products of India Ltd., Mr. Vishnu N.M. : Mr. Kartikey Nayyar, Advocate
and Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partners of along with Mr. Venkata
Polymer Products of India Ltd., and Mr. Harsha Subramanyam, Managing
Gumballi, Manager (Admin) of Polymer Products of Partner of Polymer Products of
India Ltd. India Ltd., in-person

For M/s Micro Engineers and Mr. Salimuddin, Managing : Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal,
Partner of M/s Micro Engineers Advocate

For Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon : Mr. Samar Bansal, Advocate
India Ltd.), Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of Quadrant EPP along with Mr. Luv Kumar,
Surlon India Ltd. and Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager Director of Quadrant EPP
(Marketing) of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. Surlon India Ltd., in-person

For Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, : Mr. Ashwini Chawla, Advocate
ex-Director of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd.

ORDER UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

Facts:

1. The present matter was initiated by the Commission on receipt of a Reference under
Section 19(1)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') from Chief Materials
Manager, North Western Railways ('Informant'), against Moulded Fibreglass
Products ('OP-1') and Power Mould ('OP-2').

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 2
2. The Informant alleged that OP-1 and OP-2 had indulged in cartelisation in the
Informant's bidding process for the procurement of High Performance Polyamide
('HPPA') Bushes and Self Lubricating Polyester Resin ('SLPR') Bushes (which are
alternatives to each other) used in Bogie Mounted Brake Cylinder Coaches in
contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Informant, inter alia, submitted that
OP-1 and OP-2 had quoted identical prices to the last 2 decimal points in their bids, in
response to the Informant's Re-Tender No. 30.16.2151-A opened on 02.09.2016,
despite them being located at different places (Kolkata and Daman).

3. Upon consideration of the reference in its ordinary meeting held on 19.07.2018, the
Commission decided to call for certain documents/ clarification from the Informant
which were filed by him on 17.08.2018.

4. Thereafter, the Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on
11.09.2018 and decided to pass an appropriate order.

5. Subsequent thereto, the Commission passed an order dated 16.10.2018 under Section
26(1) of the Act forming an opinion that there exists a prima facie case of contravention
of the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, and accordingly,
directed the Director General ('DG') to cause an investigation into the matter and
submit a report. The Commission made it clear that if during the course of
investigation, the DG comes across anti-competitive conduct of any other entity/ person
in addition to those mentioned in the information, the DG shall be at liberty to
investigate the same as well. Further, the DG was directed to conduct a detailed
investigation into the matter without restricting and confining itself to the duration
mentioned in the information. The DG was also directed to investigate the role of the
officials of the Opposite Parties, in terms of Section 48 of the Act, after giving them
due opportunity of being heard.

6. During the pendency of investigation before the DG, applications under Section 46 of
the Act read with Regulation 5 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser
Penalty) Regulations, 2009 ('LPR') were received in the Commission on behalf of (i)
Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and its 5 individuals, (ii) OP-1 and its 5 individuals, (iii)
Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. and its individuals, and (iv) Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 3
MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) and its 2 individuals. The same, vide separate orders, were
forwarded by the Commission to the DG.

Findings of the DG:

7. The DG, after conducting a comprehensive investigation in the matter, submitted the
investigation report. The findings of the DG in its report, in brief, are as under:

(a) The following nine (09) other parties are also found to be involved in the alleged
cartelisation:
i. Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. ('OP-3')
ii. Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. ('OP-4')
iii. M/s Anju Techno Industries ('OP-5')
iv. Calstar Steel Limited ('OP-6')
v. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. ('OP-7')
vi. Polymer Products of India Ltd. ('OP-8')
vii. M/s Micro Engineers ('OP-9')
viii. Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) ('OP-
10')
ix. Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd ('OP-11')

(b) After analysing the nature of activities performed by the contravening parties i.e.
manufacture and supply of moulded plastics, HPPA/ SLPR Bushes, protective tubes
and other multiple components, all the eleven (11) parties (OP-1 and OP-2 and the
above additional 09 parties) were found to be entities indulging into economic
activities and hence, 'enterprise' within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act.
Further, it was found that the Indian Railways, vide its circular, has declared HPPA/
SLPR Bushes to be alternates to each other. As such, all the 11 parties were found
to be engaged in identical/ similar trade of goods. Accordingly, the conduct of these
11 parties was can be analysed in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act.

(c) During the investigation, the DG analysed various evidences in the form of price
parallelism in various tenders across different railways zones, commonality of IP
addresses and common login time and date of a bunch of parties, common
directorship/ partnership of some groups of parties, and e-mail exchanges and
WhatsApp communications between representatives of various parties. The DG

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 4
carved out a modus operandi which was being followed by the parties and observed
that:

a. there was a clear understanding between the parties with respect to
determination of prices in regard to the tenders floated by Indian Railways for
procurement of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes. Further, there were also discussions
regarding revision in prices and e-mails where members can be seen pressuring
other members to quote only the decided prices and not lower;

b. the parties had an agreement and understanding wherein the intention was to
inflate or increase the prices of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes in the tendering process.
The parties also discouraged each other to quote lower rates in the bids and
encouraged each other to quote higher prices;

c. the parties could be seen asking other parties to withdraw their offers which
showed that the parties, in agreement with each other, were controlling and
limiting the supply of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes as these were the only approved
vendors of the said product;

d. the tenders were distributed amongst the parties on the basis different railway
zones and accordingly, the parties were sharing the market by way of allocation
of the tenders by geographical area of the market.

In view of the above, the DG concluded that all the eleven (11) parties were
indulging in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and
3(3)(d) of the Act.

(d) In terms of Section 48 of the Act, the DG identified certain individuals of the
parties who had played an active role in contravention of the provisions of the Act
by the respective entity and/ or was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of
the business of the respective entity during the period of contravention, and
accordingly, fixed liability upon 14 such individuals..

Proceedings before the Commission:

8. The Commission considered the investigation report submitted by the DG in its
ordinary meeting held on 15.04.2021 and decided to implead the additional 09 parties
found guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Act by the DG, as Opposite

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 5
Parties 03 to 11 in the present matter (OP-1 to OP-11 hereinafter referred to as the
'OPs'). The Commission also forwarded an electronic copy of public version of the
investigation report to the Informant, giving it an opportunity to file its suggestions/
objections, if any thereto. As far as the OPs and their individuals found liable by the
DG in terms of Section 48 of the Act were concerned, the Commission decided to form
a confidentiality ring amongst them for the purposes of sharing confidential version of
the DG Report/ DG Records with them, and accordingly, directed the OPs and their
individuals concerned to furnish to the Commission, the names and undertakings of
persons who would form part of the confidentiality ring on their behalf.

9. Upon receipt of such names and undertakings from 09 out of 11 OPs and their 12
individuals, the Commission, vide order dated 08.09.2021, created a confidentiality ring
amongst the 09 OPs and their 12 individuals and forwarded to them, electronic copy of
the confidential version of the investigation report. To remaining 02 OPs and their 02
individuals, non-confidential qua OPs version of the investigation report was
forwarded. The parties were given an opportunity to file their suggestions/ objections, if
any, to the investigation report of the DG and they were also directed to file their
certain financial statements. The OPs were directed to furnish their audited Financial
Statements including Balance Sheets and Profit & Loss Accounts for the relevant
Financial Years ('FYs') i.e. 2015-16 to 2019-20 along with details of their revenue and
profit generated in these FYs from the sale of HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes by way
of Affidavits supported by certificates of Chartered Accountants, while the persons
identified by the DG in terms of Section 48 of the Act were directed to file their income
details including Income Tax Returns ('ITRs') for the FYs 2017-18, 2018-19 and
2019-20.

10. Thereafter, on 27.01.2022, the Commission heard the oral submissions addressed by the
respective learned counsel(s) for the parties on the DG report and on the respective
applications for lesser penalty filed by certain parties under Section 46 of the Act. The
Commission decided to pass an appropriate order in the matter in due course.
Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective written arguments.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 6
Submissions of the parties:

11. In their suggestions/ objections to the investigation report of DG written arguments, and
during the oral hearing, the parties took diverse pleas which are summarised in the
succeeding paras:

12. Informant

12.1 No submissions were filed on behalf of the Informant, and neither anyone
appeared on behalf of the Informant.

13. Moulded Fibreglass Products and Mr. Alok Somani

13.1 OP-1 largely agrees with the observations and conclusions drawn in the
investigation report. However, it may be noted that OP-1's role in the cartel was
limited only in its capacity of being a Part I supplier of SLPR Bushes. It did not
participate in the cartel as Part II supplier of HPPA Bushes. Further, though the
cartel was in operation since 2014 onwards, OP-1 came to know about the same
only in 2016 when Mr. Alok Somani was approached by the other manufacturers
to become a part of the cartel. In 2016 also, OP-1 became an unwilling member to
the cartel only because it was incurring heavy losses in its SLPR Bushes business
as the Indian Railways had decided to treat low performing HPPA bushes at par
with expensive SLPR bushes. However even on becoming a part of the cartel, OP-
1 did not play an active role in facilitating the cartel. Since beginning, it was Ms.
Shanta Sohoni of OP-4 who co-ordinated the activities and was the ring leader of
the cartel. Further, the tendering mechanism of Indian Railways of negotiating
prices based on L1 quotes also lead to an indirect exchange of price related
information.

13.2 There was no cartel between OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11. The DG's theory of there
being a cartel between OP-1 and OP-3 based on identical IP addresses from which
bids were quoted, is untenable. OP-1 and OP-3 may have participated in the same
tenders, but while one was quoting for HPPA Bushes, the other was quoting for
SLPR Bushes. Further, the Indian Railways was also well aware of OP-1 and OP-3
being sister entities. For the sake of complete disclosure, it is submitted that on
certain occasions, even OP-11 also filed the bids from OP-3's office; however, this

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 7
was because OP-11 bought the major raw material 'prepreg' for SLPR Bushes,
from OP-3 only. OP-11 could enter the business of SLPR Bushes only because of
the help of OP-3 which provided to it the necessary raw material and technology
to develop SLPR Bushes. However, it continued to face various technical
difficulties for which it regularly consulted OP-1 and OP-3. Hence, it cannot be
said that OP-11 provided cover bids for OP-1 and OP-3.

13.3 The DG has not investigated cartel conduct prior to 2016 despite there being
evidence on record to show that the cartel was in operation from at least 2014.

13.4 The DG's conclusion regarding there being geographical allocation of market
amongst the OPs, is factually and legally, untenable. There is no evidence on
record regarding territorial/ geographical/ zonal allocation of tenders amongst the
OPs.

13.5 OP-1 is a Micro Small and Medium Enterprise ('MSME') and has undergone
severe economic hardship on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, monetary
penalty ought not to be imposed on OP-1.

13.6 OP-1 has fulfilled all conditions mentioned in the LPR for grant of lesser penalty
to it. It has provided full, true and vital disclosures and has extended full,
continuous and expeditious co-operation. In fact, the disclosures made by OP-1
and OP-3 led to other participants also file for lesser penalty. The DG has also
extensively relied upon the evidence provided by OP-1 to incriminate various OPs.
Even before the filing of a lesser penalty application, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1
had voluntarily made vital disclosures to the DG and provided direct evidence of
cartel which included e-mails exchanged between the OPs in furtherance of the
cartel. Hence, OP-1 ought to be granted the maximum benefit of reduction in
penalty, if any, imposed upon it.

13.7 OP-1's participation in the cartel did not lead to any appreciable adverse effect on
competition ('AAEC') within India. In terms of the factors stated under Section
19(3) of the Act, OP-1's conduct neither created any entry barriers for new
entrants in the market, nor drove existing competitors out of the market, nor led to
foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market. Rather, OP-1
developed a technically superior product in the form of SLPR Bushes along with

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 8
competing vigorously against incumbent HPPA Bushes players who had formed a
cartel which led to significant benefit to the consumer (Indian Railways). It helped
OP-11 enter SLPR Bushes market leading to improvement in the production and
distribution of SLPR Bushes. By developing SLPR Bushes, OP-1 solved long-
standing technical problem faced by the Indian Railways thereby leading to
promotion of technical and scientific development.

14. Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Alok Somani

14.1 OP-3 largely agrees with the observations and conclusions drawn in the
investigation report. However, though the cartel was in operation since 2014
onwards, OP-3 came to know about the same only in 2016 when Mr. Alok Somani
was approached by the other manufacturers to become a part of the cartel. Further,
OP-3 started participating in the cartel only from January 2018 onwards, that too
because it was incurring heavy losses in its SLPR Bushes business as the Indian
Railways had decided to treat low performing HPPA bushes at par with expensive
SLPR bushes. It can be seen from the rates quoted by OP-3 in 2016 and 2017
tenders that such rates were quite low and competitive. Anyhow, even on
becoming a part of the cartel in January 2018, OP-3 did not play an active role in
facilitating the cartel. Since beginning, it was Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-4 who co-
ordinated the activities and was the ring leader of the cartel.

14.2 In many of the excel sheets containing data of allotment of tenders to various OPs
which are attached to the e-mails of Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-4 sent 2016
onwards, OP-3 has been wrongly mentioned in place of OP-1. It was OP-1 and not
OP-3 which had joined the cartel in 2016. Further, the tendering mechanism of
Indian Railways of negotiating prices based on L1 quotes also lead to an indirect
exchange of price related information.

14.3 There was no cartel between OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11. The DG's theory of there
being a cartel between OP-1 and OP-3 based on identical IP addresses from which
bids were quoted, is untenable. OP-1 and OP-3 may have participated in the same
tenders, but while one was quoting for HPPA Bushes, the other was quoting for
SLPR Bushes. Further, the Indian Railways was also well aware of OP-1 and OP-3
being sister entities. For the sake of complete disclosure, it is submitted that on

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 9
certain occasions, even OP-11 also filed the bids from OP-3's office; however, this
was because OP-11 brought the major raw material 'prepreg' for SLPR Bushes,
from OP-3 only. OP-11 could enter the business of SLPR Bushes only because of
the help of OP-3 which provided to it the necessary raw material and technology
to develop SLPR Bushes. However, it continued to face various technical
difficulties for which it regularly consulted OP-1 and OP-3. Hence, it cannot be
said that OP-11 provided cover bids for OP-1 and OP-3.

14.4 The DG has not investigated cartel conduct prior to 2016 despite there being
evidence on record to show that the cartel was in operation from at least 2014.

14.5 The DG's conclusion regarding there being geographical allocation of market
amongst the OPs is factually and legally, untenable. There is no evidence on
record to regarding territorial/ geographical/ zonal allocation of tenders amongst
the OPs.

14.6 OP-3 is an MSME and has undergone severe economic hardship on account of
COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, monetary penalty ought not to be imposed on OP-3.

14.7 OP-3 has fulfilled all conditions mentioned in the LPR for grant of lesser penalty
to it. It has provided full, true and vital disclosures and has extended full,
continuous and expeditious co-operation. In fact, the disclosures made by OP-1
and OP-3 led to other participants also file for lesser penalty. The DG has also
extensively relied upon the evidence provided by OP-3 to incriminate various OPs.
Even before the filing of a lesser penalty application, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-3
had voluntarily made vital disclosures to the DG and provided direct evidence of
cartel which included e-mails exchanged between the OPs in furtherance of the
cartel. Hence, OP-3 ought to be granted the maximum benefit of reduction in
penalty, if any, imposed upon it.

14.8 OP-3's participation in the cartel did not lead to any AAEC within India. In terms
of the factors stated under Section 19(3) of the Act, OP-3's conduct neither created
any entry barriers for new entrants in the market, nor drove existing competitors
out of the market, nor led to foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the
market. Rather, OP-3 developed a technically superior product in the form of
SLPR Bushes along with competing vigorously against incumbent HPPA Bushes

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 10
players who had formed a cartel which led to significant benefit to the consumer
(Indian Railways). It helped OP-1 and OP-11 enter SLPR Bushes market leading
to improvement in the production and distribution of SLPR Bushes. By developing
SLPR Bushes, OP-3 solved long-standing technical problem faced by the Indian
Railways thereby leading to promotion of technical and scientific development.

15. Power Mould, M/s Anju Techno Industries, Polyset Plastics Private Ltd., Mr.
Bhupesh Bafna and Ms. Shanta Sohoni

15.1 The informal market understanding amongst the vendors with regard to the supply
of HPPA Bushes to the Railways existed to safeguard and recover the investments
in R&D put forth by the vendors and to deliver good quality product at reasonable
price. The answering OPs were not fully aware of the exact and specific
competition law in the country and the OPs will certainly be extra careful and
cautious of all rules, regulations and existing compliances in all their future
dealings. The informal arrangement between the OPs existed in ignorance of
existing laws. Their intention or actions were not to prevent the entry of any new
entity in the tender process i.e. anti-competitive in nature. The field and market
was always open for all and the answering OPs' dealings have always been fair to
all.

15.2 In the digital era, procurement system and subsequent tendering process of the
Indian Railways is very robust and in no way can be influenced by the vendors. It
is not the case that due to any action on part of the answering OPs, the price of the
product increased or jacked-up.

15.3 The answering OPs have never been party to any earlier inquiry or investigation.
The revenue earned by them from the sale of HPPA Bushes is also very less
considering the overall business. Further, in light of the impact of COVID-19
pandemic and consequent lockdowns, the businesses of the answering OPs have
suffered a lot. Hence, no penalty ought to be imposed upon the answering OPs.

16. Calstar Steel Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Agarwal

16.1 OP-6 has not been a member of the association amongst the OPs for a major
portion of the period in question. It was not an active member and always had

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 11
reservations in forming or participating in this association. It was only a part of the
association for a brief period from 05.12.2016 to 22.06.2017 and further from
01.03.2019 to 31.03.2020. It was a reluctant participant as it did not approve of
this understanding/ association and joined for this brief period only at the
insistence of other participants. From the documents on record, it is very clear that
OP-6 had not quoted in any tender during the period 22.06.2017 to 01.03.2019 as
per the directions of the association or participated in any manner with the
association. The DG has missed out that OP-6 was not a regular participant and
was a part of the association only for a brief period. As a result of not being a
regular member, OP-6 was not able to get good rates and operated at a negligible
profit.

17. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Vishal Baid, Mr. Rajeev Dhudani and Mr. Rajesh R.

17.1 OP-7 is a lesser penalty applicant before the Commission. Through its lesser
penalty application, OP-7 has provided full, true and vital disclosures regarding
the alleged cartel. OP-7 has extensively explained the cartel conduct by providing
details of (i) the market structure in which the cartel arrangement took place; (ii)
the members and modus operandi of the cartel, (iii) role of key persons involved in
the cartel, (iv) e-mail correspondences regarding preparation and submission of
bids in a concerted manner and indicating sharing of commercially sensitive and
confidential price information between the OPs; and (v) chronology of the related
events in which bid-rigging took place. Further, OP-7 also provided allocation
tables, which contain details of all tenders for which the OPs had colluded with
each other to fix prices and allocate quantity amongst each other. The allocation
tables contained details of approximately 417 tenders from February 2016 till July
2020. Hence, OP-7 has made immense value addition by way of its submissions
and extensively assisted the DG in arriving at its conclusions. The DG has heavily
relied on the information and evidence submitted by OP-7. This value addition by
OP-7 demonstrates the exact nature of collusion, which would have been difficult
to ascertain without having received the extensive cooperation from OP-7. OP-7
also submitted evidence highlighting involvement of additional member(s) in the
cartel conduct who have not been identified by the DG as relevant individual(s)
under Section 48 of the Act. In light of this, and considering the fact that OP-7 has

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 12
fulfilled all conditions for grant of lesser penalty as mentioned under the LPR, OP-
7 and its individuals should not be levied any penalty, and if a penalty is to be
levied, OP-7 and its individuals ought to be granted the maximum applicable
reduction in penalty under the LPR.

17.2 The DG has erred in observing that the OPs indulged in geographical allocation of
the market. The Indian Railways distributes its operations into different zones
across the country geographically and each railway zone procures its products
separately by floating separate tenders. The DG rightly mentions that the OPs had
allocated the market percentage to each vendor. However, this market percentage
is not allocated on the basis of any geographic segmentation as the OPs supply
their products to railways pan-India, i.e. across various railway zones.

17.3 Penalty, if any, ought to be imposed only on relevant turnover/ profit of OP-7, i.e.
the turnover/ profit derived from sale of HPPA bushes in the relevant time period/
duration (i.e. 2016 to 2020)

17.4 Following mitigating factors ought to be considered in case the Commission
deems it necessary to impose penalty: (i) OP-7 continuously co-operated with the
Commission and the DG during the investigation; (ii) OP-7 earned insignificant
profits from the cartel arrangement; (iii) OP-7 was forced to join hands with other
vendors in order to secure their business because the market is driven and solely
controlled by Indian Railways and vendors have to adhere to the framework and
tender conditions stipulated by Indian Railways; (iv) OP-7 is a MSME unit with
limited resources, and has suffered significant repercussions of COVID-19
pandemic and accordingly, imposition of penalty will put an additional significant
financial burden on OP-7; and (v) OP-7 played a limited role in the cartel
arrangement as Ms. Shanta Sohoni was responsible for co-ordinating amongst the
members of the cartel.

17.5 OP-7 had also disclosed about existence of another cartel arrangement. The
Competition Law Review Committee, in its report dated 26.07.2019, has
acknowledged the challenges faced by the Commission in cartel detection and
enforcement and, in view of this, recommended that where an applicant makes
full, true and vital disclosure with respect to another cartel (Leniency Plus), such

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 13
applicant may be granted lesser penalty specified in the LPR. In view of this, the
Commission, while deciding the quantum of penalty reduction in the present
matter, may also take into account the additional disclosure of a contravention of
Section 3 of the Act made by OP-7 in another matter. Considering the legislative
desire for Leniency Plus, in addition to the comprehensive co-operation provided
by OP-7 in this matter, the Commission may, considering the fact that OP-7 has
also made full, true and vital disclosures with respect to another anti-competitive
agreement, grant OP-7 and its individuals, 100% immunity from penalty in the
present matter.

18. Polymer Products of India Ltd., Mr. Vishnu N.M., Mr. Venkata Subramanyam
and Mr. Harsha Gumballi

18.1 OP-8 was not named as an OP in the initial reference received from the
Informant. OP-8 and its individuals were rather impleaded by the DG later as an
after-thought without any merit, solely on the basis of the fact that OP-8 had
always participated in the tender process issued by the Indian Railways. However,
the DG, in the investigation report, has failed to establish any relation between
OP-8 and the other OPs.

18.2 The DG has failed to establish prior agreement of 'meeting of minds' between the
OPs. The communications referred to between OP-8 and its individuals with other
OPs rather express difference of opinions and disagreements. OP-8 has always
followed fair trade practices and accordingly, avoids any professional
communication with any competitor with respect to any tender whatsoever, for
which OP-8 may or may not bid.

18.3 OP-8 was only a Part II supplier of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes to the Indian
Railways. Part II suppliers are not considered for supply of more than 20% of the
tendered quantity, that too only if the rate quoted by them is less than Part I source
suppliers' rate. Since OP-8 was offered 10% of the net procurable quantity in the
Impugned Tender, it illustrates that OP-8 had quoted quite competitive rates to the
Indian Railways based on various factors such as cost of raw material, labour cost,
freight cost, etc. Being a part II source supplier, OP-8 is in no position to dictate
the prices of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, which are decided on the basis of

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 14
prices of Part I source suppliers. Part II source suppliers are left at complete mercy
of Part I source suppliers and they are forced to follow the directions set by Part I
source suppliers to survive in the market and procure business. Hence, OP-8,
having no control over the market of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes, has not entered into
any cartel arrangement and/ or manipulated the prices of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes.

18.4 OP-8 has not indulged in modification of any prices arising out of the cartel.

18.5 OP-8 had not quoted in any of the tenders through a common IP address with any
other OP.

18.6 OP-8 had provided all relevant information, documents and evidence during the
entire proceedings and has co-operated genuinely, fully, continuously and
expeditiously in the present matter. It has not concealed, destroyed, manipulated or
removed any relevant and necessary documents of the present case.

18.7 COVID-19 pandemic has had catastrophic impact on the entire world, especially
small-scale industry like OP-8 which have been facing the brunt of uncertainty
looming around the world economic structure since the onset of COVID-19.
Hence, Commission may consider waiving of levy of any penalty upon OP-8 and
its individuals.

19. M/s Micro Engineers and Mr. Salimuddin

19.1 There is no evidence in the DG Report which may even remotely connect OP-9 or
Mr. Salimuddin to the alleged cartel. OP-9 and Mr. Salimuddin have been falsely
implicated in the present case on the basis of mere suspicion and conjectures by
the DG, without any application of mind to the facts, statements, e-mails,
WhatsApp communications and documents on record.

19.2 OP-9 had received approval for participation in Tenders of Railways as Part-II
Vendor for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes on 09.09.2015 from RDSO. It had
participated only in 2 small tenders for HPPA bushes/ SLPR bushes concerning
Purchase Orders ('PO') dated 09.03.2016 and 15.03.2016. However, as it incurred
losses in the two (2), contemplating further losses, it stopped manufacturing HPPA
bushes/ SLPR bushes and participating in railway tenders from the 2nd half of
2016. RDSO, on its own as per its rules, and without any application from OP-9,

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 15
extended the validity of approval granted to OP-9 till 08.09.2020 vide letter dated
17.07.2017. However, OP-9 did not participate in any railway tender for HPPA
bushes/ SLPR bushes between 2nd half of 2016 and 2020 or beyond.

19.3 The DG has simply implicated OP-9 and Mr. Salimuddin on the basis of certain e-
mails marked to them. However, OP-9 could not have prevented any other party to
send any such e-mail to OP-9. None of such e-mails were ever replied to by or on
behalf of OP-9. None of the e-mails were ever even acted upon by OP-9. OP-9 did
not receive any P.O. from Railways post 15.03.2016 which itself shows that none
of such e-mails marked to OP-9 were ever relevant to it.

20. Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.), Mr. Luv
Kumar and Mr. R.K. Singh

20.1 OP-10 and its individuals have filed lesser penalty application before the
Commission admitting to their limited participation in the cartel arrangement and
as such, they have no objections to the findings contained in the investigation
report.

20.2 OP-10 and its individuals, as lesser penalty applicant, have provided full, true and
vital disclosures to assist the investigation and they have extended full co-
operation as well. They have fulfilled all conditions set out in Section 46 of the
Act and the provisions of the LPR. The admissions of individuals of OP-10 have
been used and relied upon by the DG in its investigation report. As part of their
lesser penalty application, OP-10 and its individuals have provided comprehensive
details of the relevant market, vendors, products concerned, price/ rates quoted,
formation and mode of operation of cartel etc. with supporting documents and
meticulously compiled data represented in the form of tables, charts/ graphs in
order to provide maximum aid to the investigation. The DG has also relied upon
such information and data supplied by OP-10 and its individuals. As such, OP-10
and its individuals ought to be granted full benefit of lesser penalty and no penalty
ought to be imposed upon them.

20.3 OP-10 is an MSME and a small market player in the relevant market. Its market
share was 3.97% in 2016-17, 8.8% in 2017-18, 6.83% in 2018-19, 3.18% in 2019-
20 and 2.15% in 2020-21 which differs from and is far less beneficial than the

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 16
share allocated to it in the cartel arrangement. The actual amounts received by OP-
10 were miniscule and not as per the cartel arrangement. OP-10 mostly had a
passive role in the cartel activity which is clear from the investigation report which
clearly shows that very limited correspondences were exchanged by the
individuals of OP-10 in comparison to other parties.

20.4 OP-10 and its individuals have ceased to participate in the cartel and have also put
appropriate structures in place to effectively implement Competition Law
Compliance policies in future.

20.5 The COVID-19 pandemic has had disastrous impact on small scale businesses like
OP-10. Hence, any penalty decided to be imposed upon OP-10 ought to be waived
off. This has also been the recent trend of the Commission in various other
matters.

21. Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Shirish Tapuriah

21.1 No submissions were filed on behalf of OP-11, and neither anyone appeared on
behalf of OP-11.

Analysis:

22. The Commission has perused the applications seeking lesser penalty filed by OP-3, OP-
1, OP-7 and OP-10 under Section 46 of the Act, the investigation report submitted by
the DG and the evidences collected by the DG, the suggestions/ objections to the DG
Report and written arguments filed by the parties, and also heard the oral arguments
made by the respective learned counsel representing the parties in the matter.

23. The Commission notes that in the present matter, allegations relate to cartelisation in
the Informant's bidding process with respect to the Impugned Tender issued by the
Indian Railways, for HPPA Brake Bushes and/ or SLPR Brake Bushes.

24. From the DG Report, it is noted that Brake Bushes are spherical linings used in bush
holders of brake hanger of railway coaches for reducing friction while connecting the
hanger to the Chassis and Brake Shoe. The DG has noted that passenger coaches earlier
made by the Indian Railways had braking system which used Bronze Bushes.
Thereafter, Brake Bushes made out of acetal, nylon and lastly Phenolic Bushes were
used. However, in 2004-05, the Indian Railways initiated field trials with SLPR Brake

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 17
Bushes and since the same gave promising results, Indian Railways gave approval to
SLPR Bushes and divided Brake Bushes Kit into two parts - Brake Bushes for critical
locations and Brake Bushes for non-critical locations. SLPR Bushes were approved for
critical locations and Phenolic Bushes continued to be used for non-critical locations.
Ultimately, due to poor performance of Phenolic Bushes, SLPR Bushes were approved
for all locations despite their high cost. Simultaneously, trials were also approved for
non-critical locations in HPPA Bushes. Thereafter, the Indian Railways passed an order
to procure SLPR Bushes and HPPA Bushes as alternates to each other depending on the
price that the lowest bidder was offering.

25. From the evidence on record, it is noted that SLPR Bushes are manufactured by three
OPs i.e. OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11 while HPPA Bushes are manufactured by 10 OPs i.e.
all the OPs except OP-11. Thus, evidently, all the OPs are engaged in the manufacture
and supply of HPPA Bushes and/ or SLPR Bushes to the Indian Railways, though OP-9
which started the manufacture of HPPA bushes in 2012-13 did not continue in such line
of activity for too long. Hence, since all the OPs have been engaged in identical or
similar trade of goods, their alleged cartel conduct shall be analysed by the Commission
in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act.

26. The Indian Railways, in order to ensure reliability, availability and safe working of
Railway assets, follows the practice of maintaining lists of approved vendors for certain
specific items. It is noted from the DG Report that SLPR Bushes and HPPA Bushes
were two of such items. Research Designs and Standards Organization ('RDSO') is the
nodal agency of the Indian Railways for vendor approval. It maintains two lists - of
Part I vendors and of Part II vendors. RDSO approved vendors included in Part I are
eligible for regular supply to the Indian Railways and for getting an order for full
quantity of tenders floated by the Indian Railways, whereas vendors approved and
included in Part II are eligible for developmental order and for getting an order for part
quantity (up to 25% only). For SLPR Bushes and HPPA Bushes, the RDSO approved
vendors along with their timelines are as follows:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 18
Date of approval as Date of approval as
Manufacturer
Part II source Part I source
21.07.2009 (SLPR) 05.04.2013 (SLPR)
OP-3
14.09.2016 (HPPA) 19.12.2017 (HPPA)
01.09.2009 (SLPR) 12.06.2015 (SLPR)
OP-1
29.09.2017 (HPPA) -
OP-11 04.09.2012 (SLPR) -
OP-4 07.09.2009 (HPPA) 20.11.2013 (HPPA)
OP-5 19.01.2010 (HPPA) 12.06.2017 (HPPA
OP-2 19.01.2010 (HPPA) 01.05.2015 (HPPA)
OP-8 22.01.2016 (HPPA) 23.08.2019 (HPPA)
OP-10 16.07.2014 (HPPA) 24.05.2017 (HPPA)
OP-7 06.03.2012 (HPPA) 27.05.2014 (HPPA)
OP-6 01.09.2016 (HPPA) 01.03.2019 (HPPA)
OP-9 01.01.2016 (HPPA) -
27. In the above background, the Commission shall analyse as to whether there was any
cartelisation in the Informant's bidding process between the OPs, with respect to the
Impugned Tender and/ or other tenders issued for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes.

28. From the DG Report, it is first of all noted that the bids for SLPR Bushes/ HPPA
Bushes quoted by the two original OPs i.e. OP-1 and OP-2, in several tenders across
different Railway Zones including North Western Railway, Central Railway and South
Western Railway, were as under:

S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price
Product
No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹)
North 1. OP-1 SLPR 5483.75
30162151-
1. Western 02.09.2016
A 2. OP-2 HPPA 5483.75
Railways
Central 1. OP-1 SLPR 2802.53
2. 11162236 08.07.2016
Railways 2. OP-2 HPPA 2802.53
South 1. OP-1 SLPR 6787.07
3. 30161250 Western 14.07.2016
Railways 2. OP-2 HPPA 6787.07

Central 1. OP-1 SLPR 2774.1
4. 38172236 10.07.2017
Railways 2. OP-2 HPPA 2774.1

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 19
From the above, it is observed that though OP-1 and OP-2 were based out of different
geographical locations i.e. Kolkata and Daman respectively, the prices quoted by them
to the Railways, that too for different substitutable products (i.e. HPPA Bushes and
SLPR Bushes) requiring different raw materials, were exactly the same.

29. Hence, though in the reference, price parallelism by OP-1 and OP-2 was alleged,
however, the DG, during investigation, went into a detailed analysis of the bids quoted
by the various bidders in various Railway tenders issued by various Railways Zones for
SLPR Bushes/ HPPA Bushes.

30. From an analysis of the tender quotations made by the various bidders for SLPR
Bushes/ HPPA Bushes in different Railways Zones, the following instances of price
parallelism were also found:

S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price
No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹)
1. S.K. Plasto 3990
2. OP-8 4731.3
3. OP-3 4410
4. OP-1 5696.25
East 5. OP-7 5428.5
1. 04171074 Central 07.11.2017
Railways 6. OP-2 5755.05
7. OP-5 5806.5
8. OP-4 5755.05
9. OP-11 5985
10. OP-6 5475.75
1. OP-3 4052.43
2. OP-1 5370.23
3. OP-7 5509.85
North 4. OP-2 5509.85
2. 3016001 Frontier 22.08.2016
Railways 5. OP-5 5398.05
6. OP-4 5843.12
7. Puran 6065
8. OP-10 5238.89

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 20
S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price
No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹)
1. OP-3 3106.65
2. OP-1 4674.6
3. OP-2 4359.13
4. OP-5 4307.31
West
3. 30161156 Central 25.10.2016 5. OP-4 4729.23
Railways 6. OP-7 4359.13
7. OP-6 3439
8. OP-10 4160.39
9. OP-8 4249.54
1. OP-3 1200.11
2. OP-1 1947.75
3. OP-2 1811.96
West 4. OP-5 1793.04
30161157-
4. Central 28.10.2016
A 5. OP-4 1975.29
Railways
6. OP-7 1811.96
7. OP-6 1769.5
8. OP-10 1811.96
1. OP-3 3578.4
2. OP-1 4509.75
West 3. OP-2 4507.65
5. 30161155 Central 21.07.2017
Railways 4. OP-5 4551.75
5. OP-4 4637.85
6. OP-10 4637.85
1. OP-3 2007.6
2. OP-1 1806
3. OP-2 2205
West
6. 30181157 Central 26.07.2018 4. OP-5 2107.35
Railways 5. OP-4 2289
6. OP-10 2110.5
7. OP-6 1575

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 21
S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price
No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹)
8. OP-8 1774.5
9. OP-11 2415
10. OP-7 2110.5

From the above data, it is clearly depicted that the other OPs, apart from OP-1 and OP-
2, were also quoting prices which were identical to one or the other OPs in various
Railway tenders issued by different Railways Zones. In fact, the DG has pointed out
that in certain instances, OPs viz. OP-4, OP-7, OP-10 and OP-5, who were based out of
different geographical locations at Mumbai, Jaipur, Ghaziabad and Vapi (Gujarat)
respectively, had quoted identical prices for the same products though separated by
inter-state borders.

31. In addition, it has also been pointed out in the DG Report that some OPs, based in the
same city and state, manufacturing the same product, had also at times quoted
substantially different prices in the same tender, for which there seems to be no
justification.
Tender No. 61160449 floated by Northern Railway and opened on 23.12.2016
S. No. Company/ Firm Product Price (₹)
1. OP-1 SLPR 4,090
2. OP-11 SLPR 4,750
3. OP-3 SLPR 8,000
Tender No. 3018250 floated by Southern Railway and opened on 17.05.2018
S. No. Company/ Firm Product Price (₹)
1. OP-1 SLPR 7,075
3. OP-3 SLPR 5,052
32. Besides, the DG has also gathered information about the OPs from the RDSO, from
which it is noted that there were two groups (Group I and II) which were operated by
common directors/ partners:
Group I
S. No. Company/ Firm Director/ Partner
i. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna
1. OP-4
ii. Ms. Anju Bafna
i. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna
2. OP-5
ii. Ms. Shailesh Bafna
3. OP-2 i. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 22
Group II
S. No. Company/ Firm Director/ Partner
i. Mr. Alok Somani
1. OP-3
ii. Mr. Parikshit Somani
i. Ms. Manjushree Somani
2. ii. Ms. Tanushree Somani
OP-1
(Ms. Manjushree Somani has authorised her husband
Mr. Alok Somani to take business decisions)
From the above, it is observed that three OPs i.e. OP-4, OP-5 and OP-2, were
controlled by Mr. Bhupesh Bafna as Partner/ Director while two other OPs viz. OP-3
and OP-1, were controlled by Mr. Alok Somani as Partner/ authorised representative.
The DG has found that these sets of entities were also declared as sister companies
before the RDSO and yet they were participating in the same tenders for the same
products as competitors.

33. In regard to these sets of sister entities, the Commission also notes from the details of
IP addresses from which bids were filed by them in various railway tenders that in at
least the following 34 tenders for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, bids were submitted by
them from a common IP address:
S. No. Tender No. Tender floated by Opening date Common IP addresses
i. OP-2 and OP-4
1. 30162151-A North Western Railways 02.09.2016
ii. OP-1 and OP-3
2. 30181250 South Western Railways 17.05.2018 OP-1 and OP-3
3. 51191329 Northern Railways 14.05.2019 OP-1 and OP-3
4. 04184022 East Central Zone 18.07.2018 OP-1 and OP-3
5. 30182151-C North Western Zone 10.04.2018 OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11
6. 30182151-D North Western Zone 04.09.2018 OP-1 and OP-3
7. 30182151-E North Western Zone 19.04.2018 OP-1 and OP-3
8. 57160025 Southern Railways 17.08.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
9. 51191329 Northern Railways 14.05.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
10. 0191536 South Central Railways 19.03.2019 OP-2 and OP-5
11. 30191534 South Central Railways 20.03.2019 OP-2 and OP-5
12. 301160861 RCF Railways 27.03.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
13. 2165809B South Western Railways 31.03.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 23
S. No. Tender No. Tender floated by Opening date Common IP addresses
14. 70160069 Southern Railways 23.03.2017 OP-2 and OP-5
15. 07181538 Northern Railways 22.03.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
16. 2165809A South Western Railways 20.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
17. 2301160836 RCF 16.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
18. 3165426 North Western Railways 20.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
19. 30171520 South Central Railways 04.04.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
20. L2165808 South Western Railways 09.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
21. L2165809 South Western Railways 09.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
22. 30163136 South Eastern Railways 23.03.2017 OP-2 and OP-5
23. 30171534 South Central Railways 04.04.2017 OP-2 and OP-5
24. 2301160806 RCF 06.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
301160616-
25. RCF 03.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
A
26. 30171156 West Central Railways 28.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
27. 30171157 West Central Railways 28.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
28. 2150277A North Eastern Railways 15.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
29. 74160058 Southern Railways 04.11.2016 OP-2 and OP-5
30. 03162030-A South East Central Railways 24.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
31. 03160109 South Western Railways 20.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
32. 30161157-A West Central Railways 28.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
33. 30161156 West Central Railways 25.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5
34. 30163627 South Central Railways 18.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5

34. Further, in respect of sister concerns OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5, from the login details
including user ID, user name, IP address, login date and time, logout date and time and
caller ID details procured by the DG from the service provider, the Commission notes
that all bids in respect of these three entities were filed from a common address in
Mumbai by a common user, even though the entities displayed their registered offices
in different states:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 24
S Login Date Logout Date
ID User IP Address Caller ID
No. & time & time
3/21/2017 3/21/2017
1 9958609 jethalal 45.117.250.242 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
12:55:39 PM 7:41:33 PM
04-01-2017 04-01-2017
2 10025230 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
14:32 22:32
04-01-2017 04-01-2017
3 10022859 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
13:22 14:31
3/27/2017 3/28/2017
4 9995854 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
5:11:19 PM 1:11:19 AM
3/27/2017 3/27/2017
5 9993849 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
10:12:57 AM 5:11:08 PM
3/18/2017 3/18/2017
6 9942386 jethalal 182.237.163.163 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
12:53:45 PM 8:53:45 PM
3/20/2017 3/20/2017
7 9952993 jethalal 182.237.163.163 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
12:55:08 PM 8:55:08 PM
11/17/2016 11/17/2016
8 9227877 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3
3:52:59 PM 11:53:01 PM
11/19/2016 11/19/2016
9 9238325 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3
3:56:32 PM 11:56:33 PM
11/19/2016 11/19/2016
10 9236108 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3
7:55:56 AM 3:55:58 PM
11/30/2016 11/30/2016
11 9292477 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3
9:59:13 AM 5:59:15 PM
12-01-2016 12-01-2016
12 9297471 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3
10:01 18:01
12/22/2016 12/22/2016
13 9426534 jethalal 58.146.103.255 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
6:44:55 AM 2:44:55 PM
08-03-2017 08-03-2017
14 10721206 jethalal 58.146.103.247 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
08:15 10:41
08-02-2017 08-03-2017
15 10719394 jethalal 58.146.103.247 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
16:21 00:15
08-03-2017 08-03-2017
16 10721291 jethalal 58.146.103.247 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
10:43 11:11
3/14/2017 3/14/2017
17 9911803 jethalal 182.237.160.197 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1
11:24:22 AM 7:24:23 PM
11-03-2016 11-03-2016
18 9152803 jethalal 202.177.252.40 0C:D2:B5:4F:D0:79
12:02 20:02
10/27/2016 10/27/2016
19 9120214 jethalal 202.177.252.40 0C:D2:B5:4F:D0:79
1:38:22 PM 9:38:22 PM
10/19/2016 10/19/2016
20 9072945 jethalal 202.177.252.40 0C:D2:B5:4F:D0:79
12:52:19 PM 8:52:19 PM

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 25
35. As far as the other OPs are concerned, while analysing different tenders across India, it
is observed that in the following tenders for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, few OPs had
submitted bids in close proximity to each other in terms of timing:
Tender No. 4107160179 opened from 06.04.2016 to 18.05.2016
S. Company/ Bid filed date
Revised Price quoted (₹)
No. Firm and time
13.05.2016 16:22 18.05.2016 Rs. 82,90,000
1. OP-1
Revised 10:52 74,61,000 (Revised)
2. OP-7 18.05.2016 10:06 - 79,06,057
3. OP-10 18.05.2016 10:10 - 76,95,126
4. OP-3 18.05.2016 10:38 - 71,29,400
17.05.2016 10:55 18.05.2016 78,49,022
5. OP-2
Revised 10:06 76,72,975 (Revised)
In the above tender, the parties had either filed their bids on 18.05.2016 or revised their
prices on 18.05.2016. Further, all the parties had filed their bids between 10:06 to 10:55
a.m.
Tender No. 04170921 of Southern Railways opened on 17.07.2017

S. No. Company/ Firm Bid filed date and time Price quoted (₹)
1. OP-1 15.07.2017 15:12 6,718.95
2. OP-5 15.07.2017 07:06 7,122.15
3. OP-10 15.07.2017 17:40 7,265.55
4. OP-3 15.07.2017 16:37 5,598.60
5. OP-2 15.07.2017 16:43 6,714.23
6. OP-4 15.07.2017 17:32 7,255.50
In the above tender also, all bids were filed on 15.07.2017 even though the last date for
filing of tender was 17.07.2017.

36. In the view of the Commission, such close proximity of date and timings in submission
of bids by the OPs cannot be a mere co-incidence. Hence, from the above evidences,
there appears to be some sort of collusion not only between OP-1 and OP-2, but also
amongst 06 other OPs as well, with respect to the tenders quoted issued by the Indian
Railways for the procurement of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes.

37. In order to understand the exact nature of such collusion, the Commission proceeds to
analyse the various e-mail communications/ WhatsApp communications exchanged
between the following key representatives of the OPs, with regard to the various

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 26
tenders issued by the Indian Railways for the procurement of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR
Bushes:
Mr. Alok Somani
1. OP-1
Mr. Amit Somani
Mr. Alok Somani
2. OP-3 Mr. Amit Somani
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur
3. OP-2 Mr. Bhupesh Bafna
4. OP-4 Mr. Bhupesh Bafna
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna
5. OP-5
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Mr. Vikas Agarwal
6. OP-6
Mr. Ram Chandra
Mr. Vishal Baid
7. OP-7 Mr. Rajeev Dudhani
Mr. Rajesh Nair
Mr. Vishnu NM
8. OP-8 Mr. Harsha Gumballi
Mr. A Venkata Subramanyam
9. OP-9 Mr. Salimuddin
Mr. Luv Kumar
10. OP-10
Mr. R.K Singh
11. OP-11 Mr. Shirish Tapuriah
38. First of all, communications exchanged between the OPs with respect to the Impugned
Tender shall be analysed. It is noted that Tender No. 30.16.2151 was floated by North
Western Railway on 17.05.2016 calling RDSO approved sources for procurement of
4108 sets of HPPA/ SLPR bushes. Prices quoted therein were as follows:
Bidding by RDSO approved Part I sources
Vendor Item Bid Price (₹)
OP-1 SLPR 4,550
OP-2 HPPA 4,563.75
Bidding by RDSO approved Part II Sources
Vendor Item Bid Price (₹)
OP-3 HPPA 3,299.99
OP-8 HPPA 4,540.30

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 27
39. As the lowest offer was received from Part II source OP-3, it was considered by the
Informant for 15% of net procurable quantity i.e. 602 sets. Next higher offer was also
from Part II source OP-8, hence, it was also considered for 10% of net procurable
quantity i.e. 402 sets at the counter offer of rate quoted by OP-3. However, it did not
accept. Lowest offer from Part I source was from OP-1 which was considered for bulk
order. Next higher offer was from Part I source OP-2 which was also considered for
bulk order at counter offer of OP-1 as per the splitting clause. However, during
negotiations, neither reduced the price. As such, order could only be placed on OP-3 for
602 sets and remaining quantity had to be retendered.

40. Revised Tender No. 30.16.2151-A was opened on 02.09.2016. Details of bids quoted in
the same were as follows in which both Part I sources quoted identical prices:
Bidding by RDSO approved Part I sources
Vendor Item Bid Price (₹)
OP-1 SLPR 5,483.75 (L1)
OP-2 HPPA 5,483.75 (L1)
Bidding by RDSO approved Part II Sources
Vendor Item Bid Price (₹)
OP-3 HPPA 4,006.80 (L1)
OP-10 HPPA 4,674.60 (L2)
OP-6 HPPA 4,999.43 (L3)
OP-5 HPPA 5,398.16 (L4)
41. In regard to this re-tender, it is noted from the DG report that the following e-mails
were exchanged between the parties:

(i) E-mail dated 03.06.2016 sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Alok Somani
of OP-1/ OP-3, Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5, and OP-7:
"As discussed, allotment of Brake gear bushes is enclosed herewith."

(ii) Response of Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 vide e-mail dated 03.06.2016:
"Are these basic prices or all-inclusive prices"

(iii) Reply by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 vide e-mail dated 03.06.2016:
"These are basic rates ED @ 6% extra + CST/VAT @ 5% or 5.5% extra
whichever is applicable. Non-allotties will quote 7-8% higher than PLR."

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 28
(iv) E-mail dated 04.08.2016 sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to the OPs:
"Subject: Allotment for New Bush tenders
75% Qty.
S. Tender Tender
Rly. Due Dt. Item for Part I Rate Value PPPL BBC
No. No. Qty.
supplier
Kit for Brake Gear
Bushes Size 2 x 32
x 20 = 120 Nos.,
301621 Bush Size 42 x 32 x
20. NWR 02/09/16 3506 2630 4927 12955547 6477773 6477773"
51-A 32 = 52 Nos. Bush
70 x 57 x 25.5= 32
Nos. Bush Size 32 x
23 x 20 = 08 Nos.

42. The above chain of e-mails exchanged between OP-1/ OP-3, OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5, and
OP-7 shows that Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 had sent an e-mail dated 03.06.2016 to the
other OPs allotting there-amongst, Brake Gear Bushes tender. In response to such
allotment e-mail, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 sought confirmation as to whether
the price agreed in the table was the basic price or all-inclusive price. To that, Ms.
Shanta Sohoni responded stating that it was the basic price wherein Excise Duty @ 6%
extra + CST/ VAT @ 5% was to be added. Thereafter, as per the e-mail dated
04.08.2016 of Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, the rate decided to be quoted by OP-1 and
OP-2 in this re-tender was ₹4,927.

43. The actual financial bids received in this re-tender, as submitted by the Informant, are
as follows:
Supplier Name/ Basic Rate/ S.T Type-S.T Total All-inclusive
Excise duty
Rank Unit (₹) Rate (%) Value (₹)
Moulded Maximum
Fibreglass 4927.00 Applicable - CST Extra-5 5483.75
Kolkata (L-5) 6%
Power Mould CST
5483.75 ED Inclusive 5483.75
Daman (L-5) Inclusive-5
44. From the above, it is evident that in the Impugned Tender, OP-2 had cleverly quoted an
all-inclusive price in the basic rate column of ₹5,483.75 while OP-1 had quoted ₹4,927
as agreed in the allocation table which when summed up with 6% ED and 5% CST was
₹5,483.75. Further, basic rate plus Excise Duty & CST and all-inclusive rates were also
identical for both the companies. Therefore, it is evident that there was a clear
understanding amongst the parties OP-1 to OP-5 and OP-7 in determination of prices

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 29
and allocation of market in regard to the Impugned Tender, which is in contravention of
the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Act.

45. Further, it is noted from the DG Report that not only with respect to the Impugned
Tender, but also with respect to other tenders issued by the different zones of the Indian
Railways from FYs 2016-17 to 2019-20 for the procurement of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR
Bushes, various e-mail communications were exchanged between the OPs relating to
determination of prices, allocation of market, and rigging of bids. The same are
depicted in tabulated form, as under:

[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 30
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls
11.04.2016 Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-9, Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Allotment for tenders due on 12/4/16
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-9, Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls
16.04.2016
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls
28.04.2016 Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-9,
Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7, Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls
allocates tenders between
09.05.2016 OP-9, Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP- Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls
New Allotment of HPPA Bushes the OPs and sends as
8, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10
attachment Price List
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush allotment.xls
Rates, allocation tables,
1. 03.06.2016 Alok Somani and Mr. Amit Somani Attachment: Bush allotment.xls
As discussed, allotment of brake gear bushes is enclosed herewith. and share of each party.
of OP-1/ OP-3, and OP-7
She also indicates the
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to
03.06.2016 Are these basic prices or all-inclusive prices percentage by which the
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5
non-allotties should quote
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. These are basic rates higher than PLR.
03.06.2016 Alok Somani and Mr. Amit Somani ED @ 6% extra + CST/ VAT @ 5% or 5.5% extra whichever is applicable.
of OP-1/ OP-3, and OP-7 Non-allotties will quote 7-8% higher than PLR.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush allotment.xls
Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, Mr. Attachment: Bush allotment.xls
17.06.2016
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and Due to oversight, we have quoted lower rate in SCR tender opened on 15/6/16. Therefore,
OP-7 we are sending herewith revised allotment for your further action

Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
24.06.2016 New Allotment with some changes for Bushes.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 31
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
OP-7
Dear Sir,
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to This time qty/ set of SCR tender due on 27.06.16 is different than earlier tender opened on
15.06.16. Hence price should be Rs. 2,464/- instead of Rs. 1,335/ as mentioned in allocation
24.06.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, and
sheet. Please check and revise the allocation sheet.
OP-7 Further please also do the allocation for ECOR Tender No. 03163779 due on 14.07.16 for
1550 sets.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
Subject: Bush allotment.xls
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr.
24.06.2016 Attachment: Bush allotment.xls
Alok Somani and Mr. Amit Somani Allotment of Bush with allotment of EcoR
of OP-1/ OP-3, and OP-7
Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, any thoughts to my proposal WhatsApp chat in addition
Alok Somani: 4 shares for 4 approvals Bhupesh to above e-mails displays
WhatsApp chat between Mr. Bhupesh Bafna: Spoke to them. They are all suggesting 3 shares. I think its reasonable. But
concerted action between
its your call
Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP- Mr. Bhupesh Bafna and
2. 23.05.2016 Alok Somani: You need to convince them I am not being unreasonable
5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Bhupesh Bafna: I have spoken to them a couple of times. We have the following on the Mr. Alok Somani regarding
OP-3 approved list. sharing of market as per
BB, PPPL, JP, QUADRANT, MICRO, POLYMER allocated shares in
Alok Somani: So what percentage of total are you proposing to me forthcoming tenders.
ICF tender No. 02167323 due on 01/07/16 is allotted between Polyset & Jai Polypan Ms. Shanta Sohoni
PLR Rate is Rs. 4601/- allocates ICF tender
3. 27.06.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Polyset will quote Rs. 4,600/- + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% = Total Rs. 5,119.80 per set. between OP-5 and OP-7
JPPL is requested to quote Rs. 5,119.80 (all inclusive) and provides rates to be
Pl. confirm the same.
quoted.
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Dear Sir, OP-3 and OP-7 are sharing
4. 04.07.2016
OP-7 We are quoting basic rate of Rs. 6,098.00 + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% (Rs. 6,787.07 all incl.) prices to be quoted in

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 32
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
in S. Rly tender due on 06.07.16. So JPPL to quote all-inclusive rate of Rs. 6,787.07. Southern Railway
Please confirm the same. forthcoming tender with
Dear Sir,
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. each other and Ms. Shanta
Okay. We hereby confirm the rate all-inclusive rate of Rs. 6,787.07.
04.07.2016 Sohoni is co-ordinating
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Regards
Rajesh Nair such exchange.
Mam,
Pl. note that SR tender due on 6/07/2016 for 3300 sets allotted to BBC and JPPL with rate
of Rs. 6098/- Basic.
BBC is now quoting sales tax rate @ 5% whereas JPPL should quote 5.5% as per
Government of Rajasthan, then there is a difference in the total rate.
04.07.2016 Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. Pl. confirm what rate we have to quote on this tender? Whether it is all inclusive rate and
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 also confirm from BBC for their rates.
Pl. reply immediately.
Also there is a confusion in ICF tender opened on 1/7/2016 as BBC rate is L2
Regards
Rajesh Nair
04.07.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Pl. discuss with BBC before quoting the rate.
Please note the following:- Ms. Shanta Sohoni clarifies
a) Tenders where HPPA/ SLPR bushes are specified, we quote only for SLPR bushes and not to the OPs that cartel is
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to
04.07.2016 for HPPA bushes
OP-7 b) Tender where only HPPA bushes are specified, we quote in BBC and are eligible for part
only for tenders where both
2 qtys which are out of scope of present arrangement. types of bushes - SLPR
Sir, and HPPA are required.
5.
We have understanding for P1 approved firms In reply, OP-7 states that
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. PPPL & PM = 2 firms for HPPA pool for tenders for only
06.07.2016 Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, and BBC & MFGP= 2 firms for SLPR
HPPA Bushes should also
OP-7 JPPL = 1 firm or HPPA
BBC firms cannot quote for tenders floated only for HPPA bushes and Polyset Group and be continued as it was
JPPL cannot quote for tenders floated for SLPR bushes. between OP-7 and OP-5

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 33
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Therefore, henceforth, allotments will be done where both types of bushes are required in previously. Ms. Shanta
same tender. If requirement is for anyone type of bush i.e. HPPA or SLPR separately, those Sohoni agrees to the same
tenders will not be allotted and accounted for pool.
stating that allocation shall
Pl. confirm.
Mam, be 33% share for each firm.
JPPL agrees in this matter.
But if any tender for separate HPPA bushes, PPPL & JPPL should have pool and there
should be a separate account and allocation for those tenders to avoid any underquote or
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. misunderstanding.
06.07.2016
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Earlier also PPPL & JPPL have such type of allocation arrangements and our suggestion
is that we both (PPPL & JPPL) continue this arrangement in Part 1 category.
Please Confirm,
Regards
Rajesh Nair,
06.07.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Yes, then we will make separate account and ratio will be 2:1 i.e. 33% share to each firm
As per discussion had with Shri Rajiv, we are doing allotments between Jai Polypan and
Polyset for HPPA Bushes Part I only.
30.07.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 OP-7 and Ms. Shanta
Ratio 2:1 (Polyset 2 firms and JPPL 1 firm)
Any doubt, pl. discuss Sohoni discuss that pool
6. Mam, for combined HPPA/ SLPR
Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. OK. There should be separate account for HPPA & SLPR combined tenders. tenders and for only HPPA
01.08.2016
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Regards
tenders should be separate.
Rajeev Dudhani
01.08.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Yes, we will continue SLPR/ HPPA A/c. separately and HPPA A/c. separately.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni to Mr. allocates tenders between
Subject: Allotment for New Bush tenders
7. 04.08.2016 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and the OPs and sends as
Attachments: Bush allotment.xls
OP-7 attachment Price List
Rates, allocation tables,

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 34
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
and share of each party.
Mam, Mr. Rajesh Nair and Ms.
We will quote all-inclusive rate of Rs. 5,509.86 per set for NFR HPPA tender No. 30161001 Shanta Sohoni discuss
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. due on 22/8/2016, in which JPPL & PPPL are equal ratio.
19.08.2016 about the prices to be
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Pl. confirm the same so that we can submit the BID.
8. Thanks & Regards, quoted in North Western
Rajesh Nair Railway tender that is to be
You are requested to quote Rs. 5,509.85 all inclusive. equally distributed between
20.08.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7
Polyset will quote Rs. 4,950.45 per pc. + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% = Rs. 5,509.85 per set OP-5 and OP-7.
Dear Sir,
SCR Tender No. 30163695-C due on 9/9/2016 for 4876 sets allocated for BBC & JPPL Prices to be quoted in
equally. South Central Railway
Ms. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms.
06.09.2016 JPPL will quote all-inclusive of Rs. 2,755.49 per set (Basic + 6% + 5.5%) tender were discussed
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Kindly confirm the above all inclusive rate to upload the tender between OP-3 and OP-7.
Thanks & Regards
Then OP-3 informs Ms.
Rajesh Nair
Dear Sir, Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 that
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to OK then you quote Rs. 2,755.49 per set all inclusive. We will quote rate with break up as due to OP-5's mistake of
06.09.2016
OP-7 below:- quoting low prices, OP-3 is
9. Basic - 2,475.73 + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% (Rs. 2,755.49 all inclusive). also being asked to quote
This has reference to your SMS to Shri Bhupesh
Ms. Shanta Sohoni to Mr. Alok lower during negotiations.
26.09.2016 By mistake we have quoted Rate Rs. 2190/- per set + ED 6% + CST 5% and therefore we
Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 have accepted order for 1045 sets in Power Mould He stated that OP-7 is the
In future, do not allot us SCR tenders for kits. Because of your mistake, we are also being joint allottee for the stated
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to
26.09.2016 asked to also reduce the rates. Now please advise JPPL who were the joint allotees for this tender; therefore, he should
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 tender regarding action to be taken when SCR calls for negotiations. also be informed of the
26.09.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Pl. reply. action to be taken during
Mam, negotiations called by the
26.09.2016 OP-7 to Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5
As such we have not received any call for negotiation from SCR for this tender. In future, if

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 35
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
received we will inform you. Railways.
Regards Ms. Shanta Sohoni thus,
Rajeev Dudhani
informs OP-7 that as tender
is to be shared between
Pl. inform BBC because they are sharing this tender with you.
Secondly, due to our mistake, you should not accept lower rate and you can show your S.
OP-7 and OP-3, OP-7 may
26.09.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 discuss with OP-3
Rly. Tender advance for getting your quoted rate.
Pl. discuss with Mr. Somani for the same. accordingly, however, it
need not reduce prices.
Power Mold had quoted rate Rs. 2,190/- per set + ED 6% + CST 5% in one of earlier
tenders of SC Rly. Therefore, SC Rly has called for negotiation against tender opened on
9.9.16.
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to We would not be attending the negotiations and would be sending a letter to them offering OP-3 informs price that it
13.10.2016
OP-7 them discount of Rs. 274/- on the basic rates. The quoted basic rate was Rs. 2.464/-. Thus.
will offer during
after giving the above discount, our basic rate would become Rs. 2,190/- per set. ED @ 6%
and CST @ 5% would be extra. negotiations to South
10.
Jai Polypan to please confirm that they would be also be quoting as above. Central Railway to OP-7
OP-7 to Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Okay. Agreed to send letter to SCR showing that our rate will be Rs. 2437.47 per set and seeks confirmation
13.10.2016 (inclusive of 6% ED & 5.5% Sales Tax) from for the same.
OP-3 BBC rate will be Rs. 2190/ + 6% + 5% - 2437.47. it is correct sir,
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to
13.10.2016 Yes, it is correct
OP-7
Mam,
P1. note that we will be quoting to WCR Tender due on 28/10/2016 Rs. 1,811.96 per set OP-7 informs Ms. Shanta
(all-inclusive i.e. basic + 6% + 5.5%) Sohoni of the rates to be
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms.
11. 25.10.2016 PPPL should quote basic 1,628 + 6% + 5% = 1,811.96 per set. quoted in Western Central
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 P1. confirm the above as PPPL & JPPL are equally allotted. Railway tender as tender
Thanks & Regards,
had been allocated equally
Rajesh Nair

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 36
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
25.10.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 o.k. under cartel arrangement.
Subject: RE: Bush allotment OF sr DUE ON 4/11/16
Ms. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Attachments: SR tender enquiry for HPPA Collar Bush due on 04.11.15.pdf OP-3 asks other parties to
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-7, Dear Sir, withdraw their allocation
12. 03.11.2016
and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP- We request you to please withdraw the allocation against S. Rly Tender No. 74160058 due against Southern Railway
3 on 04.11.16 as the tender is for only HPPA Collar Bush which is mentioned under tender.
Instructions/ Remarks
Dear Sir,
Please note that NR tender due on 18.11.2016 for 350 sets of Brake Gear Bushes allotted to OP-3 informs rates to be
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to both BBC and JPPL with basic rate of Rs. 5,036/-. quoted in Northern
13. 15.11.2016
OP-7 We are quoting basic rate of Rs. 5,036.00 + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% (Rs. 5,605.07 all Incl.) Railway tender allocated to
in N Rly. tender due on 18.11.16. So JPPL to quote all-inclusive rate of Rs. 5,605.07. Please OP-3 and OP-7.
confirm the same.
Prices to be quoted by OP-
3 and OP-6 and other OPs
E. Rly. Tender no. 11161074 due on 06/12/16 for 3334 sets in Eastern Railway tender
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. This tender is allotted between BBC and CSL are fixed by Ms. Shanta
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. MFP (group of BBC) will quote Rs. 5,175/- per set + ED @ 6%+ CST @ 5% = Rs.
14. 06.12.2016 Sohoni of OP-5. She also
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-7, 5,759.77 all inclusive
CSL will quote Rs. 5,155/- per set + ED @ 6% + GST @5% = Rs. 737.51 all inclusive indicates the percentage by
OP-6, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10
Non allotties should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR" which the non-allotties
should quote higher than
PLR.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
Subject: Bush allotment circulates allocation table
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr.
15. 21.12.2016 Attachments: Bush AC-1.xls allotting forthcoming
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-7, New Allotment of N Rly. tenders due on 23/12/16 Northern Railway tenders
OP-6, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10
along with Price List Rates

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 37
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
amongst the OPs.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
that tenders are allocated
between 03 entities and
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. they should mutually
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. Subject: New allotment of Bushes discuss and quote. She also
Attachments: Bush Ac-1.xls
16. 16.01.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, sends as attachment revised
Tenders distributed between 3 firms should mutually discuss and quote the tenders.
OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- Non-allottees should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR Price List Rates, list of
10 approved suppliers for
HPPA Bushes and SLPR
Bushes, and allocation of
tenders.
Dear Sir/ Madam
WE are not able to quote the RCF tender 2301160616 due on 23.2.17 allotted to us as it
doesn't allow us to quote, same time we are also not able to quote in the W rly tender due on
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to 22.2.17. OP-8 requests for allotment
17.02.2017
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 We will ensure that RCF and W rly add our firm name in their future tenders so that we can of different tender than
quote.
17. We request you to kindly change the allotment and allot us SCR tender due on 1.3.2017
those allotted but Ms.
allot them the RCF tender and oblige. Shanta Sohoni declines the
Dear Sir, request made by OP-8.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. We have not allotted below mentioned both tenders to your a/c.
17.02.2017
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 RCF tender is allotted to Quadrant & W. Rly. tender is allotted to BBC.
So, allotment will remain same.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush Ac-1.xls Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Attachments: Bush Ac-1.xls
18. 24.02.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and allocates entire quantity of
As requested by Jai Polypan, we have allotted entire quantity of WCR tender No. 30171157
OP-7 due on 28/3/17 is allotted to BBC. West Central Railway

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 38
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
BBC should quote for entire tender quantity. tender to OP-3 on request
Jai Polypan will quote higher rate in this tender and their shortfall will be adjusted in the of OP-7. She asks OP-7 to
next tender.
quote higher rate in the
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
Pl. note that WCR tenders 30171156 & 30171157 due on 28/3/17 both tenders are allotted tender and their shortfall
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6,
24.03.2017 to CSL would be adjusted in next
OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- Non-allotties should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR tender. Ms. Shanta Sohoni
10
also sends as attachment
revised Price List Rates,
list of approved suppliers
for HPPA Bushes and
SLPR Bushes, and
allocation of tenders and
share.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Thereafter, Ms. Shanta
ER tender due on 6/12/16 was allotted between BBC and CSL.
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. Sohoni re-allocates West
3250 sets finalized in favour of BBC and bal. qty. dropped and CSL is not received any
24.03.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, order. Central railway tenders to
OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- Hence, WCR tender No. 30171156 due on 28.3.17 has been allotted to CSL. OP-6 as Eastern Railway
10 BBC is requested to quote minimum 8% higher than PLR. tender allotted to OP-3 and
OP-6 was finalised only in
favour of OP-3 and OP-6
had received nothing.
Hence, Ms. Shanta Sohoni
requests OP-3 to quote
higher in West Central
Railway tender.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 39
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. attachment revised Price
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. List Rates, list of approved
Subject: New Allotment of Bushes.
19. 01.04.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, suppliers for HPPA Bushes
Attachments: Bush AC-1.xls
OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- and SLPR Bushes, and
10 allocation of tenders and
share.
Subject: Bush AC-2.xls
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls
As per latest RDSO's Vendor Directory published on 18th April 2017, following firms are provides list of approved
Approved Vendors vendors as on 18.04.2017
1. M/s. Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (for HPPA) and provides business share
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 2. M/s. Power Mould (for HPPA) for each firm. She sends as
3. M/s. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (for HPPA)
20. 02.05.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and attachment revised Price
4. M/s. Black Burn & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for SLPR)
OP-7 5. M/s. Moulded Fibreglass Products (for SLPR) List Rates, list of approved
Business share will be distributed between above 5 firms. Each firm will get 20% share suppliers for HPPA Bushes
Therefore PPPL 40% and SLPR Bushes, and
BBC: 40% allocation of tenders and
JPPL:20%
share.
Tenders opened after 01/05/2017 is allotted accordingly.
Subject: Revised allotment of HPPA Bush Ms. Shanta Sohoni notes
Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls that OP-10 has also
Dear All,
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-3, received approval and
21. 03.06.2017 M/s. Quadrant Surlon got approval as "Approved Vendors"
OP-7, and OP-10 Therefore, we have worked out individual share including M/s. Quadrant and allotment of therefore, provides revised
pending bushes has been revised. Price List Rates, list of
All are requested to quote the rates as per revised allotment. approved suppliers for

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 40
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
HPPA Bushes and SLPR
Bushes, and allocation of
tenders and list of allocated
share.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni informs
the OPs of addition of OP-
Subject: Bush Allotment
4 as Part-I Vendor and
Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Our firm M/s. Anju Techno Industries is upgraded as "Approved Vendor" w.e.f. provides as attachment
12/06/2017. revised Price List Rates,
22. 13.06.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-7,
Now, total approved vendors are seven (7) list of approved suppliers
and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Share for each firm has been revised and allotment for future tenders are done accordingly. for HPPA Bushes and
We have done some changes in the earlier allotted tenders.
SLPR Bushes, and
All are requested to quote the tenders as per revised allotment
allocation of tenders and
share.
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to Mr. Alok Somani asks
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. BBCPL's allocation in developmental sources should be for 2 firms allotment as Part II vendors
19.06.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, a) Skylark as developmental source in PR bushes to be made for both OP-11
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP- b) BBCPL as developmental source in HPPA bushes for SLPR Bushes and OP-3
7, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 for HPPA Bushes.
23. Subject: Allotment of Brake gear bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls that allotment would be
Dear All,
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, made for both Part I and
19.06.2017 It is decided that we will make allotment for Approved Vendors as well as Development
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP- Vendors.
Part II Vendors and players
7, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Account for Approved Vendor is worked out on the basis of 80% of the tender quantity and who have not been allotted
Account for Development Vendor is worked out on the basis of 2O% of the tender quantity. anything in a tender, would

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 41
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Development Vender should quote 2.5% less than PLR for allotted firms quote minimum 8% higher
Non-allotties should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR. than Price List Rate.
She also provides as
attachment revised Price
List Rates, list of approved
suppliers for HPPA Bushes
and SLPR Bushes, and
allocation of tenders and
share.
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to Dear All Mr. Harsha Gumballi
21.06.2017
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Have quoted in SWR tender due tomorrow according to the PLR writes to Ms. Shanta
Subject: Re: Allotment of WSWR tender due 27/6/18 Sohoni with CC to other
Attachments: SWR Brake Gear Bush Comparative statement 22.6.17.pdf OPs that though it had
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to Dear All,
27.06.2017 quoted in South Western
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 South Western Rly tender opened on 22.6.17 was allotted to us but was quoted less by
Blackburn and Calstar. Railway tender as per Price
24. Please update the CPO accordingly. List Rate circulated, it did
not get the tender which
Dear All was given to OP-3 and OP-
We request you to kindly update the CPO as we are not L1 in our allotted tender SWR 301
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to 6 who quoted below their
21.07.2017 71250A opened on 22.6.17
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 We have not quoted in the other tender no 15160656 W Rly opened on 3.7.2017.
decided prices. Hence,
Kindly do the needful. allocation sheet be updated
accordingly.
Dear Sir, Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. For negotiation of HPPA Bushes of WR Tender No. 15160657 opened on 4/5/17, Mr. Bafna
25. 09.08.2017 that based on discussion
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 has spoken to Mr. Somani and decided that M/s Moulded Fibre will send letter giving
revised rate of Rs. 1,970/- basic + GST @ 5% extra. between Mr. Bhupesh

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 42
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
M/s Power Mould will attend the meeting and giving the same revised rate. Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5
and Mr. Alok Somani of
OP-1/ OP-3, OP-1 will
quote revised rate and OP-
2 will quote same rate in
negotiations in respect of
Western Railway tender.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
that high value tenders
Dear Sir, would be split in 60:40
It is difficult to finalise the tender when both companies rates are same and it is looking like ratio as it was difficult to
cartel between both the firms. finalise tenders if both
Therefore, it is decided that high value tenders will be divided 60:40 ratio. companies quote same
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. In the ECR tender we will quote Rs. 4,581/- + GST @ 5% = Rs. 4,810.05 per set all
26. 17.08.2017 price and it would indicate
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 inclusive.
You are requested to quote Rs. 4,590/- + GST @ 5% = Rs. 4,819.50 per set all inclusive. cartel between them. She
So, you will get counter offer of our rate for 40% quantity and easy to Rly. officer for also provides rates to be
finalisation of tender. quoted by OP-3 and OP-5
Pl. confirm, in Eastern Central Railway
tender for OP-5 to receive
40% quantity.
Subject: New Allotment of Brake gear Bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni revises
Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls price list rates w.e.f.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear All,
27. 04.12.2017 01.12.2017 and sends as
R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 We are revising our Price List rates w.e.f. 01/12/2017.
Therefore, all are requested to quote revised rates for tenders opening after 01/12/2017. attachment revised Price
Allotment is done with revised rates only. List Rates, list of approved

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 43
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
suppliers for HPPA Bushes
and SLPR Bushes, and
allocation of tenders and
share.
Dear Madam,
Please find below status of ECoR Tender No. 03171811 opened on 18.08.17
S. Tender Opened Tender Qty PO recd.
Rly Remarks
No. No. on Qty allotted for Qty.
1075 sets allotted to us but PO has
OP-3 requests dropping
been received by us for only 1042
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Sets. Hence 33 sets should be
05.12.2017 1. ECoR 03171811 18.08.17
3361 1075 1042 amount to reflect reduction
considered as dropped & value
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 sets sets sets
in purchase order actually
should be reversed from our A/C.
Please update the allocation sheet
accordingly. made; however, OP-5
28.
Also please find attached herewith list of tenders allotted to us but POs have been placed on refuses and states that if
developmental vendor. Hence we request you to please consider these tenders as dropped & 100% order is placed on
value should be reversed rom out A/C.
OP-3, full amount will be
Dear Sir,
We have updated your ECoR record.
reflected in its account.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. As per your statement, all these orders are finalized in favour of BBC i.e. your firm and
06.12.2017
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 where 100% order is placed on your firm, those tender will be taken in your account
because your quoted rates are less than 15-20% lower than PLR and therefore, these
tenders are not finalized on Approved supplier.
Dear All,
Allotment for new tenders are enclosed. Ms. Shanta Sohoni makes
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Single tenders allotted to BBC should quote in their Firm which is approved for "Approved allocation for new tenders.
29. 20.12.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-7, vendor" and not in "Dev. Source". OP-3 makes it clear that it
and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 We are accounting 80% tender quantity and allotted to Approved Vendors Only. Therefore, is now a Part I vendor and
tenders allotted to approved vendors should not under quote from their "Dev. Source firm"
not Part II vendor. OP-7
and grab the order.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 44
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Please note the following:- requests that Part II sources
1. That we are not in the pool for developmental source and this has been our stance right should also run in pool just
from the beginning.
like Part I sources effective
2. As you all know, we are offering much lesser rates from developmental source
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to from 01.01.2018.
21.12.2017 irrespective of whether the allocation for approved source is in our favour.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 3. We do not pursue with railways to place order on developmental source bypassing higher
offer of approved sources.
If despite not pursuing, railways offer full quantity on developmental source, we cannot
help it.
Dear Sir,
OP-7 to Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Only 3 firms are in development source. Pl. make pool in dev. source also to avoid any
disturbance in getting orders of approved vendors. Otherwise, no meaning to run approved
22.12.2017 OP-3, and Ms. Shanta Sohoni of
sources pool.
OP-5 4. Our humble request is that all the dev. source should run under pool with effect from 1st
January 2018.
Dear Madam, OP-3 requests Ms. Shanta
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to
28.12.2017 We have a huge shortfall in the accounting period 1.6.16 to 28.11.16. Details are attached.
Sohoni to make future
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Please incorporate the same in the accounts and make future allocations accordingly.
allocations to it in view of
the fact that it had huge
30.
Dear Sir, shortfall in accounting
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
29.12.2017 Now, we have accounted tenders w.e.f. 01/05/2017 and therefore we cannot update earlier period 01.06.2016 to
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 tender position in this statement.
28.11.2016. Ms. Shanta
Sohoni however, refuses.
Sir, OP-3 asks OP-5 to tell the
NER Tender No. 22160770A due on 19.01.2018 for 8335 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to rate to be quoted in North
31. 15.01.2018 allotted to both PPPL (60% of 80% qty) & BBC (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 2,714. 00 per set
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 basic. Eastern Railway tender.
Please advise what rate both of us to quote. Ms. Shanta Sohoni replies

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 45
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear Sir, with the rates to be quoted.
Polyset will quote Rs. 2,714/- per set + GST @ 5% = Total Rs. 2,849.70 per set all incl.
15.01.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur and Mr. Alok
BBC will quote Rs. 2,725/- per set + GST @ 5% = Total Rs. 2,861.25 per set all incl.
Somani of OP-3 Pl. confirm the same
Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. Mam, Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-
We are not interested in NFR (Dibrugarh) (due on 24/4/18) tender. Pl. allot other firm and
7 states that OP-7 is not
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr.
21.04.2018 remove this amount from our account.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and interested in North Western
Best regards
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Rajeev Dudhani Railway tender allocated to
32.
it. But Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7, Dear Sir,
states that due to shortfall,
21.04.2018 Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Due to shortfall this Tender is allotted to you. There is no choice, but to request you to
this tender was allocated to
and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 quote for this tender
it and there are no choices.
Sir,
E. Rly. Tender No. 11171082A due on 01.05.2018 for 3013 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is OP-3 writes to Ms. Shanta
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to allotted to both BBC (60% of 80% qty) & PPPL (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 5,429.00 per set Sohoni that Eastern
24.04.2018
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 basic. Railway tender is allocated
Please advise what rate BBC & PPPL should quote. This is re-tender. In earlier tender
33. opened on 20.12.17, BBC had quoted Rs. 5,329.00 per set basic.
between itself and OP-5
Sir, and so what rates should be
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. E. Rly. Tender No. 11171082A due on 01.05.2018 for 3013 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes. quoted. Ms. Shanta Sohoni
24.04.2018
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 5,429/-per set + GST @5% = Total Rs. 5,700.45 provides rates to be quoted.
PPPL will quote Rs. 5,445/- per set + GST @5% = Total Rs. 5717.25
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Dear Madam, OP-3 requests Ms. Shanta
NR tender due on 08.06.18 for 750 sets is floated by AMV/ LKO and would not be split 60/
07.06.2018 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-7, Sohoni for changes in
40. Therefore, we request for change in allocation either 80% in our favor or 80% in favor
34. and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 of Quadrant. allocation of Northern
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC is requested to quote higher rate in NR-AMV tender. We will account this tender in Railway tender between
07.06.2018 itself and OP-10. Ms.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and Quadrant account.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 46
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Shanta Sohoni obliges.
CR Tender No. 38182236 due on 02-07-18 is allotted between PPPL and BBC PPPL will Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. quote Rs. 2,952/- + GST @5% = Rs. 3,099.60 per set (all incl.) provides rates to be quoted
35. 20.06.2018
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 2,962/- + GST @5% = Rs. 3,110.10 per set (all incl.) by OP-5 and OP-3 in
Pl. confirm Central Railways tender.
NFR tender 30181001 due on 16/07/2018 is allotted between BBC and PPPL
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC will quote Rs. 5,774/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,062.70 per set (all incl.) Ms. Shanta Sohoni
11.07.2018
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 PPPL will quote Rs. 5,765/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,053.25 per set (all incl.) provides rates to be quoted
Pl. confirm
36. by OP-3 and OP-5 in
Revised
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC will quote Rs. 5,774/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,062.70 per set (all inc1) North-East Frontier
11.07.2018 Railway tender.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 PPPL will quote Rs. 5,783.50 + GST @5% = Rs. 6,072.67 per set (all incl.)
Pl. confirm
Dear Sir,
NWR Tender No. 30182151D due on 04-09-18 for 2549 sets allotted between PPPL and Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC provides rates to be quoted
37. 01.09.2018
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Polyset will quote Rs. 6,057/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,359.85 per set (all inclusive) by OP-3 and OP-5 in North
BBC will quote Rs. 6,075/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,378.75 per set (all inclusive) Western Railway tender.
Pl. confirm the same
Sir, OP-3 seeks advice from
W. Rly. Tender No. 15180683 due on 06.12.2018 for 2,52,148 Nos. Brake Gear Bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni on price
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to
30.11.2018 (Item-3) is allotted to both PPPL (60% of 80% qty) & BBC (40% of 80% I qty) @ Rs. 33.50
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to be quoted in Western
per no. basic.
Please advise what rate BBC should quote in this tender. Railway tender allocated
38.
Dear Sir,
between OP-3 and OP-5.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
Polyset will quote Rs. 33.50 per pc. + GST @ 5% and BBC will quote 33.60 per pc. + GST Ms. Shanta Sohoni
30.11.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur and Mr. Alok
@ 5% provides prices to be
Somani of OP-3 Pl. confirm quoted.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 47
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Dear Sir,
SER Tender No. 30181434A due on 07.01.2019 for 2013 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to allotted to both BBC (60% of 80% qty) & JPPL (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 6,058.00 per set OP-3 advises OP-7 the rate
04.01.2019
OP-7 basic quotation for South Eastern
39. So in this tender, we will quote list price i.e. Rs. 6,058. 00 per set basic. You are advised to Railway tender, which OP-
quote Rs. 6,065.00 per set basic. Please confirm.
7 agrees to.
OP-7 to Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of Dear Sir,
04.01.2019
OP-3 OK agreed. We will quote R& 6065 per set basic + GST as suggested by you.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as
attachment revised Price
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
List Rates, list of approved
R.K. Singh of OP-10, Mr. Ram Subject: New allotment of Bushes
40. 08.01.2019 suppliers for HPPA Bushes
Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls
and SLPR Bushes, and
Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7
allocation of tenders and
share.
Dear All,
Calstar Steel Ltd. got approval as Approved source w.e.f. 01/03/2019 Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-6,
Accordingly there are now 8 approved supplier and share has been revised. that as OP-6 is now also
27.02.2019 Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3,
We have made allotment accordingly. Part-I Vendor, so shares are
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Non-allotties should quote minimum 8 higher than PLR re-allocated accordingly.
Non-allotties should quote minimum 8-10% higher than PLR
However, Mr. Luv Kumar
41. Mr. Luv Kumar of OP-10 to Ms.
of OP-10 and Mr. Bhupesh
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-6, Mr.
27.02.2019 Please increase prices in order to compensate Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr.
want higher prices for
R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7
compensating lesser
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/
27.02.2019 I am in agreement with Luv Kumar allocated share.
OP-5 to Mr. Luv Kumar and Mr.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 48
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
R.K. Singh of OP-10, Ms. Shanta
Sohoni of OP-5, OP-6, Mr.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and
OP-7
Dear Sir,
We would like to bring to attention of all that we have presently agreed to give supporting OP-6 states that it would
quotation up to 20-03-2019 till an all-party meeting is called and all pending issues are provide supporting
Mr. Vikas Aggarwal of OP-6 to Ms.
42. 02.03.2019 decided. quotations until 20.03.2019
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 We shall request the administrator to call for a meeting at the earliest possible. till all-party meeting is
Regards,
called.
VA(CSL)
Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. Dear all, OP-7 requests allocation of
Pl. note that NWR-JU tender retendered on 25/03/2019.
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. North Western Railway
43. 18.03.2019 Kindly revise the allocation of this tender to us.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, Regards tender to it as it has been
and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Rajeev Dudhani re-tendered.
Dear All,
As you all are aware that Calstar was got approval of Approved Vendor on 07/01/2019 and OP-7 states that as OP-6
Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. they are getting orders of ER & SER tenders opened on 07/01/2019
has become approved
So kindly re-check the accounts and issue excess & shortages.
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. vendor, re-checking of
26.03.2019 We are in a loss of around 2.5 crores during 2018-2019 F. Y.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. How we can full fill our losses. excess and shortages is
44. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-6 We request your valued comments in this matter required as OP-7 has
Best Regards suffered losses. He also
Rajeev Dudhani
states that OP-6
Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. Subject: Re: Allotment of new tenders
Attachments: comparative of L-parel HPPA tender.pdf
underquoted in Western
05.04.2019 Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. Railway tender.
Dear All,
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Pl. see comparative statement of today's HPPA tender. It was allocated to JPPL. But

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 49
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-6 Calstar underquoted.
How we can run adjustment between all firm. We are in loss of 2.75 crores in this
adjustment of business.
You all are requested to comment on this matter.
Regards
Rajeev Dudhani
Dear Sir, OP-7 provides rates to be
JFPL & BBC are allotted NWR tender due on 10/04/2019 (60%+40%) quoted by itself and OP-3
JPPL will quote PLR (i.e. 6,058/- Basic + 5% GST)
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. for North Western Railway
08.04.2019 BBC will quote Rs. 6,067/- Basic + 5% GST
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Kindly confirm the above rate immediately tender.
Thanks & Regards However, as tender date
45. Rajesh Nair got extended, Ms. Shanta
Subject: Bush Allotment Sohoni changed allocation
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-3.xls
for the tender. She sends as
Due date for NWR tender is postponed to 19/04/2019
12.04.2019 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, attachment revised Price
Allocation for NWR tender is changed.
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 All are requested to quote strictly as per allocation. List Rates, and allocation
Non-allotties should quote minimum 8-10% higher than PLR of tenders and share.
Mam,
Please note that as per information received from NER for tender No. 10191100 opened on OP-7 informs that as one
Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. 11/03/2019 has cancelled due to quantity received to consignee against earlier North Eastern Railway
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. tender/order.
46. 28.05.2019 tender allocated to it has
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, Kindly remove this amount from our account.
Pl. update the account been cancelled, same be
and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10
Regards removed from its account.
Rajeev Dudhani
Subject: Bush allotment
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as
47. 25.07.2019 Attachments: Bush AC-3.xls
R.K. Singh of OP-10, Mr. Ram Dear All, attachment, revised Price

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 50
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar We have made some changes in the earlier allotment. List Rates, and allocation
Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7 All are requested to quote the tenders as per revised allotment of tenders and share.
N. Rly. tender No. 07191 774 due on 08-08-2019 for 6526 sets of Brake gear bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni
This tender is allotted between PPPL and BBC provides rates to be quoted
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
48. 03.08.2019 PPPL will quote Rs. 6,192/- per set + GST @5% = Rs. 6,501.60 per set (all incl.) in Northern Railway tender
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 6,205/- per set + GST @5% = Rs. 6,515.25 per set (all incl.). allocated between OP-3
Pl. confirm the same
and OP-5.
Attn: Shri Rajiv Dudhani/ Shri Rajesh Nair
As per allocation, this tender was allotted between Polyset and Black Burn. How Jai OP-5 asks OP-7 as to how
08.08.2019 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Polypan has quoted lower rate i.e. 5-6% lower than PLR. has it underquoted in
You are requested to withdraw your offer immediately under intimation to us Otherwise it
49. will be difficult to run the pool.
Northern Railway tender
Dear Vishalbhai and requests it to withdraw
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/
08.08.2019 Whatever be the reason for underquoting, we request you to withdraw your offer it offer.
OP-5 to OP-7 immediately otherwise the pool may break.
Subject: New allotment of Bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni asks the
Attachments: Bush Ac-3.xls OPs to not break Price List
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear all, Rate or underquote.
R.K. Singh of OP-10, Mr. Ram Pl. do not break the PLR and underquote any of the tender which is not allotted to you
50. 13.08.2019 Further, as attachment, she
Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Feel free for discussion of any tender allotment. We will try to update your suggestions if
possible. sends revised Price List
Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7
Non-allotties should quote strictly 8-10% higher than PLR. Rates and allocation of
Regards tenders and share.
Dear All,
OP-6 provides to Ms.
We shall be quoting the following rates in N.F. Railway Tener No. 30190409 Due on 09-10-
Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6 to Ms. 2019 Qty - 8291 Nos. Shanta Sohoni, the rates
51. 03.10.2019
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Consignee QTY Basic Rate Freight GST All-inclusive rate OP-6 would quote in North
DBRT Workshop 709 Nos. 90/- 30/- 12% 134.40
KIR GSD 196 Nos. 90/- 50/- 12% 156.80
Frontier Railway tender

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 51
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
NBQ Workshop 802 Nos. 90 25/- 12% 128.00
PNO GSD 6584 Nos. 90/- 10/- 12% 112.00
All non-allotties are requested to quote 8-10% higher.
Dear Sir,
ER Tender No. 11191074 due on 09.09.19 for 5016 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is allotted to
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to both BBC (60% of 80% qty,) & Quadrant (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 6,058.00 per set basic
05.09.2019
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 So in this tender, we will quote list price i.e. Rs. 6,058.00 per set basic
You are advised to quote Rs. 6,075. 00 per set basic OP-3 provides rates to be
Please confirm quoted in Eastern Railway
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 to Mr. tender allocated to OP-3
05.09.2019 OK
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 and OP-10, to OP-10.
We have discussed with Polymer Products and they have agreed that they will quote 8% Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
52. higher than PLR (PLR Rs. 6,058/- + GST @5%)
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. that OP-8 has agreed to
You both are requested to quote PLR and do not reduce the price
09.09.2019 R.K. Singh of OP-10 and Mr. Kit for HPPA Brake gear bushes for 4 items as per quote higher in this tender.
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 ER 11191074 09/09/2019
RDSO SK-81039 Alt. 15. Item No. 2 = 120 nos., 5016
6058/- OP-10 thereafter asks OP-3
Item No. 3 = 52 nos., Item No. 7 = 32 Nos., Item sets
No. 11 = 8 Nos. as to why did it underquote
Subject: Re: ER Tender No. 11191074 due on 09.09.19 for 5016 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes than rates agreed.
Attachments: Eastern Railway - HPPA Bush (09.09.19).pdf
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 to Mr.
09.09.2019 Dear Mr. Thakur,
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Can you please let us know why you have under quoted in ER tender from the rates as
agreed below
Attachments: MOM.pdf; Bush Ac-4.xls
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Minutes of Meeting
Meeting was held at Mumbai on 10/09/2019. circulates Minutes of
Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. R.K.
Members were present: Meeting held on
53. 11.09.2019 Singh of OP-10, Mr. Tarkeshwar
1. Shri Bhupesh Bafna: M/s. Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 10.09.2019 at Mumbai, in
Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Harsha 2. Shri Vishal Baid: M/s. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. which discussions
Gumballi of OP-8, and OP-7 3. Shri Alok Somani: M/s. Black Burn & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
pertaining to approved
4. Shri R. K. Singh: M/s. Quadrant EPC Surlon India Ltd.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 52
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Following points agreed: vendors and rates to be
1. M/s. Calstar Steel Ltd got approval as "Approved Vender" for supply of HPPA Brake revised were provided.
gear bushes w.e.f. 07/01/2019. Hence orders for CSL will be accounted for tender opened
Further, she sends as
on and after 07/01/2019. Accordingly statement will be circulated and close the account
up to 22/08/2019 (Bush Ac-3) revised Price List Rates,
2. M/s. Polymer Products of India got approval as "Approved Vendor" for supply of HPPA and allocation of tenders
Brake gear bushes w.e.f. 23/08/2019. Therefore, New account generated with earlier and share. OP-6 replies
excess/shortage including Polymer Products in the pool. Tender opened on and after apologising for not being
23/08/2019 where Polymer is L1 will be accounted. (Bush Ac 4)
able to attend meeting and
3. PLR will be increased @ 5% w.e.f. 11th September 2019.
4. Now M/s. Moulded Fibre Glass Products is only the firm under "Dev Source". Shri states that after upgradation
Somani is agreed that henceforth, they will quote approx. 5% less than PLR in M/s. of OP-8, distribution which
Moulded Fibre. was already
Further, if 100% P0 awarded to "Dev. Source", same will be accounted in the pool. disproportionate, has
Dear Sir,
become even more skewed.
We are sorry for not being able to cone to the meeting.
Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6 to Ms. We find that the distribution which was already disproportionate has become even more
12.09.2019
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 skewed with the up gradation of Polymer Products, and we are not getting a fair share. So
in all fairness both Pt-II and Pt-I quantity should be taken into account for calculation of
individual share.
Dear Sir,
C. Rly. tender No. 38192236 opened on 17/09/2019 was allotted between Polyset and Ms. Shanta Sohoni seeks
Calstar explanation from OP-10 for
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr.
18.09.2019 But your firm has quoted lower rate. Pl. explain why? quoting lower rate in
R.K. Singh of OP-10 If we have to run the pool, such mistakes are not acceptable.
54. Central Railway tender and
You are requested to withdraw your offer immediately and send withdrawal letter copy in
the pool for confirmation asks it to withdraw. Mr.
Subject: Re: C. Rly. Tender No. 38192236 due 17-09-19 R.K. Singh of OP-10
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 to Ms.
19.09.2019 Attachment: CR-CSTM.pdf withdraws from tender.
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Please find herewith attached our request submitted to Central Railway for withdrawal of

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 53
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
our offer for the below said tender.
This is for your kind information please
Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, we both need to agree on some changes in the distribution % of FIPPA
share of business otherwise this business will become non profitable & then will be very
difficult to revive.
So its my request to you to agree with what I'm proposing.
Alok Somani: What r u proposing?
Bhupesh Bafna: Sending you in a few minutes
19.09.2019 Bhupesh Bafna: Polyset Group-25%, Blackburn group-25% (including both Pt-I & Pt-II
share), Other 4 - 12.5% each
Alok Somani: Better to call a meeting again Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-
WhatsApp chats between Mr.
Bhupesh Bafna: I have spoken to all. 2/ OP-4/ OP-5 proposes
Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-
55. They are not inclined to continue the.. revision of share from what
5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Its only the ratio issue otherwise everything is going fine. I personally believe that the pool has been earlier decided in
OP-3 & prices will break if we both don't agree with the above formula
meeting.
Alok Somani: As per Mumbai meeting our percentage share worked out to 37.8% including
provisionally approved firm. PPL's share worked out to 26.7%. While you are willing to let
21.09.2019
go 1.7% of your share you want us to forego 12.8%. Is that logical? You need to rethink
Bhupesh
Bhupesh Bafna: If we do proper detailed calculation then the breakup should be BBC 29%,
PPPL 21%, Calstar 12.50%, JPPL 12.50%, Polymer 12.50%, Quadrant 12.50%, Total
26.09.2019
100%
If this is agreeable to you then I will put it up on HPPA group
OP-3 informs other parties
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-7, SECR Tender No. 03182030A due on 01.10.19 is allotted to BBC @ Rs. 35.25 basic. Since that South-East Central
GST rate of HPPA Bushes has been increased from 5% to 12% w.e.f. 01.10.19, we will Railway tender has been
56. 30.09.2019 Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr.
quote Rs. 35.25 + GST @12% (Rs. 39.48 all incl.) allocated to it so all other
Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, and Mr. All are requested to quote their rates accordingly parties should quote
R.K. Singh of OP-10
accordingly.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 54
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation

Ms. Shanta Sohoni asks
As per latest discussion, pool will work out on 100% tender value w.e.f. 01/10/2019
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. OP-3 to quote higher rate
57. 30.09.2019 You are requested to quote higher rate in NR tender due 01/10/2019 in part II firm
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Other tender allocation will be sending by evening in Northern Railway tender
as Part II firm
Subject: Bush Allotment
Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls; Bush AC-4.xls
Dear All, Ms. Shanta Sohoni
As per discussion had with group members, working will be done on 100% tender value. provides to parties their
Ratio for all members are as under w.e.f. 01/10/2019.
ratio of allocation w.e.f.
Polyset: 21%, BBC: 29%, JPPL: 12.5%, Quadrant: 12.5%, CSL: 12.5%, Polymer: 12.5%
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Total: 100% 01.10.2019 and asks parties
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Allotment w.e.f. 01/10/2019 is done on the basis of above ratio. to quote as per Price List
58. 30.09.2019 Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. R.K. Due to withdrawal of Quadrant's offer against CR tender opened on 17/09/2019 and Rates. She also requests
Singh of OP-10, Mr. Harsha discussion had with Dy. CMM, CR, this tender will be retendered in October 19 therefore, parties to quote GST @ 12
we have not accounted this tender in the statement.
Gumballi of OP-8, and OP-7 %. Further, as attachment,
All are requested to quote as per allocation with new PLR
Non-allotties should quote minimum 8-10% higher than PLR. she sends revised Price List
"AS PER PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY GST COUNCIL, MINISTY OF FINANCE, Rates and allocation of
GST RATE @ 12% WILL BE APPLICABLE FOR CHAPTER 86 OF WAGON, tenders and revised share.
COACHES AND ROLLING STOCK ITEMS W.E.F. 01/10/2019"
All are requested to quote GST @ 12% for bush tenders.
Ms. Shanta Sohoni asks
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush Ac-5.xls OPs to quote decided rates
Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. R.K. Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls
in Eastern Railway tender.
59. 30.09.2019 Singh of OP-10, Mr. Harsha ER tender No. 11191686 due on 04/10/2019 quantity is in 2135 sets (32 Nos. in one set) and
PL rate is Rs. 1,128/- per set + GST @5%. She also sends as
Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. Tarkeshwar
All are requested to quote the rate in per set and quote 8% to 10% higher than PLR. attachment, revised Price
Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7
List Rates, and allocation

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 55
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
of tenders and share.
Subject: N.F. Railway Tender No. 30190409 due on 09-10-19 for Mfg. & Supply of Brake
Gear Bush to RDSO Drg. No. SKETCH-81039, Item -7
Dear All,
We shall be quoting the following rates in N.F. Railway Tender No. 30190409 due on 09-
10-2019 Qty- 8291 Nos.
Consignee QTY Basic rate Freight GST All-inclusive rate OP-6 provides rates to be
Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6 to Ms.
60. 03.10.2019 DBRT quoted for North-East
Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 709 No 90/- 30/- 12% 134.40
Workshop Frontier Railway tender.
KIRGSD 196 Nos. 90/- 50/- 12% 156.80
NBQ
802 Nos. 90/- 25/- 12% 128.00
Workshop
PNO GSD 6584 Nos. 90/- 10/- 12% 112.00
All non-allotties are requested to quote 8-10% higher.
Dear Sir,
We have clearly mentioned in the email dt. 30/09/2019 that PL rate for ER tender No.
11191686 due on 04/10/2019 quantity is in 2135 sets is Rs. 1,128/- + GST 5%
Sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5
04.10.2019 As per tabulation statement, you have quoted this tender today morning at 10.28 am and
to OP-8 quoted for single pc. Rate and tender is for set of 32 pcs.
You are requested to withdraw your offer immediately i.e. today with copy to be sent in the Ms. Shanta Sohoni informs
pool. that OP-8 has misquoted in
61. Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to Eastern Railway tender and
Mr. Vikas Agarwal and Mr. Ram Subject: Re: FW: Bush Ac-5.xls asks it to withdraw. OP-8
Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Attachments: E Rly BGB offer withdrawal.PDF agrees.
04.10.2019 Thakur and Mr. Alok Somani of Dear Sir/ Madam,
OP-3, Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, Please find enclosed withdrawal letter.
We will submit the same at the earliest.
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/
OP-5, and Mr. Vishal Baid and Mr.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 56
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Venkat of OP-8
Dear Sir,
SR Tender No. 04190921A due on 15.11.2019 for 3729 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is
allotted to both BBC (60% of 100% qty) & JPPL (40% of 100% qty) @ Rs. 7,897. 00 per
Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to set basic
11.11.2019
OP-7 So in this tender, we will quote list price i.e. Rs. 7,897.00 per set basic plus GST @12% (Rs. OP-3 and OP-7 decide their
8,844.64 all incl.).
62. You are advised to quote Rs. 7,915.00 per set basic plus GST @12% (Rs. 8,864.80 all incl.)
rates to be quoted in
Please confirm Southern Railway Tender
Dear Sir,
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. Agreed. We will quote Rs. 7,915 + 12% = 8,864.80 all Incl.
11.11.2019
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Regards
Rajesh Nair
Ms. Shanta Sohoni states
NER Tender No. 22190770 due 29-11-19 is allotted between PPPL & BBC that North Eastern Railway
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. PPPL will quote Rs. 3,190.50 + GST @12% = Rs. 3,573.36 per set all incl. tender is allocated between
63. 26.11.2019
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 3,205/- + GST @12% = Rs. 3,589.60 per set all incl. OP-5 and OP-3 and
P1. confirm the same provides prices to be
quoted
Dear All,
OP-8 requests for
WE would like to inform that we had quoted North East Frontier tender no WE 30190409
opened on 09.10.2019. clarification as to why did
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to
We had quoted Rs. 80.64/- all-inclusive which is 72 basic + 12% GST which is 8.6% more OP-6 quote higher rates
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr.
64. 12.12.2019 that the PLR rate which is 66.25/- than decided in North-East
Venkata and Mr. Vishnu of OP-8 We have observed that initially the tender was allocated to CSL, but we were L1 as the rates Frontier Railway tender
and Mr. Vikas Agarwal of OP-6 quoted by CSL was Rs. 90 + 30 freight + 12% GST (All Incl. 134.40)
without any prior
We had no prior information about the change in rates to be quoted. We wish to know the
reason for quoting higher rates.... information.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 57
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: SCR TENDER NO 30191446 DUE 22-1-2020 provides rate to be quoted
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls for South Central Railway
Dear All,
65. 18.01.2020 Harsha Gumballi and Mr. Surya of tender. She also sends as
SCR TENDER NO. 30191446 DUE 22-01-2020 Rate of the item should be read as Rs.
OP-8, Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, 66.25 per pc. instead of Rs. 63/- attachment, revised Price
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 All are requested to quote this tender accordingly. List Rates, and allocation
of tenders and share.
Dear Sir
We received information from S. Rly for the below tender and found that BBC is reduced
rate of Rs. 400/- per set in the negotiation and entire order is going to BBC.
Since we both are allotted in this tender and no information received so far from your side
for attending negotiation and reduce rate.
All the matters have been settled during pool's last meeting and now it is very shameful
matter.
How can we run such type of pool?
OP-7 expresses anguish at
Pl. clarify
OP-3's non-regard to cartel
Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. Tender Tender
Rly
No.
Due Dt. Item
Qty
Rate Value BBC JPPL arrangement with respect to
66. 13.02.2020 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 and
Kit for HPPA Southern Railway tender
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 Brake gear which was allocated to
bushes for 4
items as per both OP-3 and OP-7.
RDSO SK-
81039 Alt. 15.
SR 04190921 15/11/2019 Item No. 2 = 3729 7897 29447913 17668748 11779165
120 Nos., Item
No. 3 = 76 Nos.,
Item no. 7 = 32
Nos., Item No.11
= 8 Nos., Bush
T-3-2-808 item

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 58
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
No. 3 = 8 Nos.

Thanks & Regards,
Rajesh Nair
This tender is allotted between PPPL & BBC
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Polyset will quote Rs. 7,227/- + GST 12% = Rs. 8,094.24 all inclusive Ms. Shanta Sohoni
25.02.2020 allocates North Central
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 8,094.24 + GST Nil = Rs. 8,094.24 all inclusive
Pl. confirm the same Railway tender between
Sir, OP-3 and OP-5 and
NCR tender No. 30192378 due on 02/03/2020 for 1037 sets
provides prices to be
67. This tender was allotted between Polyset and BBC and we have also informed you that
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. rates to be quoted for both the firms. And the same was confirmed by you
quoted.
02.03.2020 Tarkeshwar Thakur and Mr. Alok But you have not quoted the same rate and also quoted lower rates However, she later alleges
Somani of OP-3 You are requested to withdraw your offer by giving copies to all pool members that OP-3 has underquoted
Regards, and accordingly it should
Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd
withdraw its bid.
Though we have informed you that both will quote the same rate
Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, how to go about. OP-3 had quoted lower in
Alok Somani: Can't help Not in my hands if the officer is taking time to send the draft Northern Railway tender
Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, reced call from Quadrant reg. N. Rly. tender where BBC has quoted
than decided. So OP-10
lower rate. He said that BBC should withdraw their offer today otherwise they will quote
WhatsApp chat between Mr. lower rate in the next tender Sir, pl do the needful. complained to OP-5.
Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP- Sir, it will be difficult to manage everyone. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna can be
68. 12.05.2020
5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Alok Somani: You can explain them the background as to why we quoted low seen telling this to Mr.
OP-3 Bhupesh Bafna: They don't have an issue that you have quoted in a tender allotted to Alok Somani and asking
Polyset. Issue is the prices are low.
OP-3 to withdraw. Mr.
Sir, with lots of difficulty we have maintained the prices.
Alok Somani: Prices quoted are same at which JPPL took away NR tender which was Somani however, explains
allotted to us last year as to why OP-3

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 59
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
Bhupesh Bafna: I leave it to you. underquoted because OP-7
In the interest of a Pool it's best the you submit a withdrawal letter. took away its last tender of
Between our issue.
Northern Railway.
We will wait for your draft & do the needful
Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, again I'm requesting you. Please submit your withdrawal letter. The
rates are 25% lower than our PLR
Hi. Hope the letter is fine It can be sent today itself
Alok Somani: Not fine I will send you draft Railway officer is drafting the same Will send
upon receipt
WhatsApp chat between Mr. Bhupesh Bafna: Ok. Sir we will send the letter Don't worry.
14.05.2020 Bhupesh Bafna and Mr. Alok I request you to withdraw you offer letter
Somani Sir, again I'm requesting you.
Please submit your withdrawal letter.
The rates are 25% lower than our PLR rates.
It will effect everything.
Many pool members are also requesting for the same.
Hope you will do the needful
Ms. Shanta Sohoni to Mr. Alok
Somani and Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as
of OP-3, Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, Subject: Allotment of Brake gear bushes attachment, revised Price
69. 15.05.2020
OP-7, Mr. Harsha Gumballi and Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls List Rates and allocation of
Surya of OP-8, and Mr. R..K. Singh tenders.
of OP-10
Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear All
Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-7, It is suggested that we increase our PLR for HPPA Bushes. Ms. Shanta Sohoni
Few reasons are as under:
70. 26.05.2020 Mr. Harsha Gumballi and Mr. Surya proposes to increase prices
1. Due to weakening of INR ys U$S and also implication of Import duty.
of OP-8, Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, 2. Railways are floating tenders now but they need supplies next year. We should cover all of HPPA bushes by 8-10%.
and MR. R.K. Singh of OP-10 uncertainties in our prices.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 60
S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation
3. Increase in expenses % and overheads % due to Covid 19.
Therefore, we suggest that we prices should be increased by 8% to 10%.
All are requested to send your comments on this suggestion.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 61
46. From the aforesaid detailed evidences, the modus operandi of the cartel operating
between the OPs is very clear. The suppliers of HPPA/ SLPR bushes communicated
with each other through e-mails or WhatsApp communications from at least April 2016
to May 2020. Ms. Shanta Sohoni was responsible for co-ordination amongst the
members of cartel. Usually, an e-mail was circulated from Ms. Shanta Sohoni, an
employee of OP-5 (and also on behalf of OP-2 and OP-4) to the other OPs allocating
forthcoming tenders in total for the period ahead and also informing and discussing the
prices to be quoted. These OPs included OP-3 (including OP-1), OP-6, OP-7, OP-8,
OP-9 and OP-10.

47. Ms. Shanta Sohoni kept record of all forthcoming tenders of Indian Railways updated
online on Indian Railways E-procurement System ('IREPS'). She allocated tenders on
the basis of allotment value (a decided percentage (%) distribution of tenders) of each
member which was maintained similar to an account statement. In this regard,
allocation tables were maintained which also mentioned earlier shortage/ excess value
and allotted value with net excess. Therefore, tenders were allocated in compliance to
the allotment share. There were also instances where tenders were allocated to more
than one member/ vendor/ supplier as agreed. In such cases, members mutually agreed
to a price before filing the bid. Ms. Shanta Sohoni communicated the basic price at
which allocated vendor should quote in the allotted tender. Thereafter, the vendors
communicated the price based on their respective additional taxes and arrived at a
mutually agreed price for submitting the bids over e-mails. As a next step, Ms. Shanta
Sohoni instructed the members via e-mail that non-allottee vendors should quote prices
that are 8-10% higher than basic prices agreed by members. With course of time,
various players/ vendors kept on adding to mutually agreed agreement/ pool and share
of each member was adjusted accordingly, in order to accommodate new players.

48. Existence of such cartel pool/ arrangement between the OPs was also acknowledged by
their various representatives before the DG. Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, in his
statement recorded before the DG, admitted that he was approached by other
manufacturers to maintain prices and he was a part of cartel. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna as
well as Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5 also submitted before the DG that an
informal market understanding existed amongst the existing approved bidders that they
should all have reasonable rate and get reasonable share of overall business to recover

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 62
investments. Mr. Vikas Agarwal of OP-6 in his statement also stated that he was
approached by other manufacturers and joined the group of other RDSO approved
manufacturers for a limited period up to 20.03.2019 for providing supporting bid
quotations. However, he stated that the company did not benefit much from the
agreement as it hardly received any orders. In his submission before the DG, Mr. Vishal
Baid of OP-7 also admitted that since 2016, authorised persons of OP-7 have been
communicating with other manufacturers. He submitted that Mr. Rajeev Dudhani,
Consultant/ Advisor for OP-7 was working as a commission/ liaison agent for railways
business and he was responsible for marketing and quality control for HPPA Bushes
orders. Further, he submitted that Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at OP-7
was the authorised person for filing bids on behalf of OP-7 in tenders floated by
Railways for HPPA Bushes. In this regard, Mr. Rajesh R., in his submission, stated that
he communicated with other manufacturers of HPPA (and SLPR) Bushes to discuss
and finalise bids to be submitted for tenders of Indian Railways. OP-9, in its submission
before the DG, also acknowledged the receipt of e-mails from OP-4. Mr. Luv Kumar of
OP-10 also, before the DG, admitted that all the approved vendors in market for supply
of HPPA bushes were participating in a cartel. He also admitted to have been part of
cartel since 2014. He admitted that there were two physical meetings during 2014-
2020. As per Mr. Luv Kumar, he attended first meeting in 2016 at JW Marriott, Aero
city, Delhi, which was called by Polyset Group for discussing market share of each
vendor pursuant to inclusion of Black Burn Group in the cartel. Hence, it is observed
that more or less, representatives of almost all the OPs (OP-1, OP-2, OP-3, OP-4, OP-5,
OP-6, OP-7, OP-8, and OP-10) have admitted to the existence of the abovesaid cartel
arrangement with respect to HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes.

49. With respect to OP-9, it is noted that three e-mails dated 11.04.2016, 16.04.2016 and
28.04.2016 were sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni to various OPs including to OP-9
regarding allocation of forthcoming tenders. Allocation tables annexed with such e-
mails show distribution of 10% share to OP-9. OP-9 has not even denied the receipt of
such e-mails. In fact, in its submission before the DG, OP-9 has acknowledged that it
has received such e-mails. Though in its suggestions/objections to the DG Report, OP-9
has submitted that it stopped manufacturing HPPA bushes/ SLPR bushes and
participating in railway tenders from the 2nd half of 2016 and it never replied to such e-

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 63
mails received, the Commission observes that there is nothing on record to show that
OP-9 also objected to the sending of such e-mails to it by Ms. Shanta Sohoni. In this
backdrop, the Commission finds the pleas urged by OP-9 of little significance and in
the opinion of the Commission, the evidences on record establish that OP-9 was also a
part of the cartel arrangement amongst the OPs.

50. With respect to OP-11, it is noted that though there seems to be no e-mails/ WhatsApp
messages exchanged with OP-11 by the other OPs, however, the IP addresses from
which the bids of OP-11 were filed in the railway tenders matched with OP-1. Also, in
certain tenders, IP address also matched with OP-3. OP-11 was located in Kolkata as
was OP-3. Further, the DG, from analysis of the sales turnover of OP-11, has noted that
the annual turnover of OP-11 was negligible; yet the company participated in tenders
quoting extremely high prices with rare chance of being allotted the tenders. Also, Mr.
Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 in his statement stated that OP-11 started business on his
proposal and Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of OP-11 was a family friend. The
companies were also sharing employees on the pretext of work experiences etc.
Therefore, in the opinion of the Commission, OP-11 was also a part of the cartel
arrangement which existed between the other OPs.

51. As far as OP-6 is concerned, it has submitted before the Commission that it was not a
member of the association amongst the OPs for a major portion of the period in
question and had reservations in forming or participating in this association. However,
from the e-mail communications extracted above including several e-mails exchanged
between OP-6 and the other OPs, the involvement of OP-6 in the cartel arrangement is
well established.

52. Regarding certain pleas raised by OP-8 that it did not form part of the initial reference
received in the matter; it had no commonality of IP addresses with other OPs etc., the
Commission finds that such arguments made by OP-8 do not help its case. The
involvement of OP-8 in the cartel arrangement between the OPs is well established
from the e-mail communications extracted above, which include multiple e-mails
exchanged by OP-8 with other OPs.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 64
53. Further, it is noted that the OPs have argued that the cartel conduct of the OPs did not
lead to any AAEC in the market as there were no entry barriers for new entrants, nor
were competitors driven out of the market, nor prices increased for the Indian Railways.

54. In this regard, firstly, the Commission notes that the provisions of Section 3(1) of the
Act not only proscribe the agreements which cause an AAEC in the market, but also
forbid agreements which are likely to cause an AAEC in the market. Secondly, the
Commission notes that once an agreement of the types specified under Section 3(3) of
the Act is established, the same is presumed to have an AAEC within India. Thus, it is
axiomatic to presume in the present matter that the impugned conduct of the parties has
caused AAEC within India.

55. No doubt, as per the ratio of the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the matter of Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Ltd. v. Union of India and Others,
2018 (13) SCALE 493, the presumption of AAEC in a case involving contravention of
the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act can be rebutted by the parties by placing
evidence to the contrary on record, however, it is noted that it is upon the contravening
parties to rebut the presumption of AAEC by showing positive effects emanating from
the cartel activity like accrual of benefits to the consumers (in the instant case, the
Indian Railways), improvement in production or distribution of goods or provision of
services, or promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of
production or distribution of goods or provision of services.

56. In this regard, the relevant excerpts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in
Rajasthan Cylinders (supra), are as follows:

"We may also state at this stage that Section 19 (3) of the Act mentions the
factors which are to be examined by the CCI while determining whether an
agreement has an appreciable adverse effect on competition under Section
3. However, this inquiry would be needed in those cases which are not
covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-Section (3) of Section 3. Reason is
simple. As already pointed out above, the agreements of nature mentioned
in sub-Section (3) are presumed to have an appreciable effect and,
therefore, no further exercise is needed by the CCI once a finding is
arrived at that a particular agreement fell in any of the aforesaid four
categories. We may hasten to add, however, that agreements mentioned in
Section 3(3) raise a presumption that such agreements shall have an
appreciable adverse effect on competition. It follows, as a fortiori, that the

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 65
presumption is rebuttable as these agreements are not treated as
conclusive proof of the fact that it would result in appreciable adverse
effect on competition. What follows is that once the CCI finds that case is
covered by one or more of the clauses mentioned in sub-section (3) of
Section 3, it need not undertake any further enquiry and burden would
shift upon such enterprises or persons etc. to rebut the said presumption
by leading adequate evidence. In case such an evidence is led, which
dispels the presumption, then the CCI shall take into consideration the
factors mentioned in Section 19 of the Act and to see as to whether all or
any of these factors are established. If the evidence collected by the CCI
leads to one or more or all factors mentioned in Section 19 (3), it would
again be treated as an agreement which may cause or is likely to cause an
appreciable adverse effect of competition, thereby compelling the CCI to
take further remedial action in this behalf as provided under the Act. That,
according to us, is the broad scheme when Sections 3 and 19 are to be
read in conjunction."
57. The Commission notes that in the present matter, OP-1 and OP-3 have stated that
development of SLPR Bushes by them and entry of OP-11 in the market amounts to
improvement in production and distribution thereby rebutting AAEC. However, in view
of the Commission, such development was not contingent upon or in any way linked to
collusive arrangement between the OPs but the same would have taken place
irrespective of such cartel conduct. As such, in view of the Commission, it can be
presumed in the instant matter that the cartel arrangement between the OPs led to an
AAEC in the market for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes within India. The OPs have been
unable to show any positive effects emanating from their cartel activity like accrual of
benefits to the consumers, improvement in production or distribution of goods or
provision of services, or promotion of technical, scientific and economic development
by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services, rather the
collusive conduct of the OPs affected fair competition in the market. On a holistic
evaluation of the submissions made by the parties and in light of the factors enumerated
in Section 19(3) of the Act, the Commission is satisfied that in the present matter, the
parties have not been able to dislodge the statutory presumption of AAEC, by adducing
cogent evidence to the contrary, as required.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 66
58. Hence, the Commission observes that there was a clear understanding between the OPs
w.r.t. determination and revision of prices in regard to tenders floated by Railways for
procurement of Brake Gear Bushes, which is in contravention of the provisions of
Section 3(3)(a) of the Act. Further, there were also e-mails exchanged between the OPs
where one OP can be seen pressuring another OP to quote only the decided prices and
not lower and where OPs can be seen asking other OPs to withdraw their offers. This
amounts to an act of controlling supply and market by regulating who and when shall
supply the products, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(b) of
the Act. There was also clear allocation of tenders amongst the OPs qualifying as
sharing of market amongst them in terms of percentage with addition and reduction
with each tender and in terms of monetary amount as well, wherein the balance sheet
was displayed for each player, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section
3(3)(c) of the Act. However, looking at the modus operandi of the cartel and the
evidences available on record, the Commission finds that conclusion of geographical
allocation of market amongst the OPs cannot be reached, as concluded by the DG.
Lastly, such modus operandi of the OPs amounts to bid-rigging in contravention of the
provisions of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act by eliminating competition and manipulating
the bidding process by forming a pool or cartel of vendors, even for developmental
vendors (Part II vendors) who were entering into the market and were at the initial
phases of manufacturing.

59. Though the OPs have also argued that they were forced to indulge into such pool
arrangement and cartel activity due to the market structure, in order to avoid losses and
get their fair share of business from the Indian Railways, the Commission is of the
opinion that the same does not bestow a right upon the OPs i.e. the suppliers/vendors to
collude together and fix prices, allocate quantities, and indulge into the illegal conduct
of bid-rigging in violation of the provisions of the Act.

Liability under Section 48:

60. Now that contravention of the provisions of the Act by the OPs has been established,
the Commission proceeds to determine in the subsequent paragraphs, the role and
liability of the respective individuals of the OPs, in terms of Section 48 of the Act.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 67
61. The DG has found the following individuals of the OPs liable in terms of Section 48 of
the Act, for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective company:

OP Person Liability u/s
OP-1 Mr. Alok Somani 48(1)
OP-3 Mr. Alok Somani, Director 48(1) and 48(2)
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director 48(1) and 48(2)
OP-2
Ms. Shanta Sohoni, Employee 48(2)
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Partner 48(1) and 48(2)
OP-4
Ms. Shanta Sohoni 48(2)
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Partner 48(1) and 48(2)
OP-5
Ms. Shanta Sohoni 48(2)
OP-6 Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director 48(1) and 48(2)
Mr. Vishal Baid, Director 48(1) and 48(2)
OP-7 Mr. Rajeev Dhudani, Consultant/ Advisor 48(2)
Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations 48(2)
Mr. Vishnu N.M., Managing Partner 48(1) and 48(2)
OP-8 Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partner 48(1) and 48(2)
Mr. Harsha Gumballi, Manager (Admin) 48(2)
OP-9 Mr. Salimuddin, Managing Partner 48(1)
Mr. Luv Kumar, Director 48(1) and 48(2)
OP-10
Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing 48(2)
OP-11 Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director 48(1) and 48(2)
62. The role and liability of each of them is discussed as follows:

(1) Mr. Alok Somani, Partner of Moulded Fibreglass Products and Director of Black
Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

63. The DG has noted that as per the records of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, OP-1 is an LLP which is managed by two partners i.e. Ms.
Manjushree Somani and Ms. Tanushree Somani since 11.03.2015. Before the DG, Ms.
Manjushree Somani submitted an Affidavit stating that she has no personal knowledge
about transactions and business of OP-1 and her husband Mr. Alok Somani is
responsible for all the decisions and day to day working of the firm. When confronted
with such Affidavit, Mr. Alok Somani also acknowledged the same. Further, the DG
has noted that Mr. Alok Somani is also one of the three directors in the private limited
company i.e. OP-3.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 68
64. In his statement before the DG, Mr. Alok Somani has admitted that he was approached
by other manufacturers of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, to maintain prices and he was
a part of the cartel. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail communications to and
fro the other OPs have been sent/ received by Mr. Alok Somani with respect to the
cartel arrangement. Certain WhatsApp communications between Mr. Alok Somani and
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna with respect to discussions on HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Tenders are
also there.

65. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Alok Somani liable in terms of
both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-3 as well as OP-1.

(2) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and Partner of
Power Mould and M/s Anju Techno Industries

66. The DG has noted that Mr. Bhupesh Bafna was one of the three Directors in private
limited company i.e. OP-5. Further, the DG has noted that Mr. Bafna is also a partner in
partnership firms, namely, OP-2 and OP-4, which Mr. Bafna has stated before the DG
are sister entities of OP-5.

67. Mr. Bafna has acknowledged before the DG that an informal market understanding
existed amongst the approved bidders of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes that they should
all have reasonable rate and get reasonable share of overall business to recover
investments. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail and WhatsApp
communications are on record which show the involvement of Mr. Bhupesh Bafna in
the cartel arrangement.

68. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Bhupesh Bafna liable in terms
of both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-5 as well as
OP-2 and OP-4.

(3) Ms. Shanta Sohoni, Employee at Polyset Plastics Private Ltd.

69. The DG has noted that Ms. Shanta Sohoni was an employee at OP-5, who was also
working on behalf of OP-2 and OP-4. She was the kingpin of the cartel who allocated
forthcoming tenders amongst the OPs and informed them about the prices to be quoted.
Ms. Sohoni was responsible for co-ordination amongst the members of the cartel. As

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 69
detailed above, there are several e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs sent/
received by Ms. Shanta Sohoni with respect to the cartel arrangement.

70. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Ms. Shanta Sohoni liable in terms
of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-5.

(4) Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director of Calstar Steel Ltd.

71. The DG has noted that Mr. Vikas Agarwal was one of the four Directors of OP-6. In his
statement before the DG, Mr. Agarwal admitted that he was approached by other
manufacturers and joined the group of other RDSO approved manufacturers for a
limited period up to 20.03.2019 for providing supporting bid quotations. There are also
certain e-mail communications on record which have been sent/ received by Mr. Vikas
Agarwal to/ from the other OPs.

72. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Vikas Agarwal liable in terms
of both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-6.

(5) Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.

73. The DG has noted that Mr. Vishal Baid was one of the three Directors of the private
limited company OP-7. He admitted before the DG that since 2016, authorised persons
of OP-7 have been communicating with other manufacturers. From the contents of the
e-mail dated 11.09.2019 sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni to representatives of some other
OPs as extracted above, it is noted that in the meeting dated 10.09.2019 held between
the OPs at Mumbai in which discussions pertaining to approved vendors and rates to be
revised were made, Mr. Vishal Baid was present as the representative of OP-7.

74. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Vishal Baid liable in terms of
Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-7.

(6) Mr. Rajeev Dhudani, Consultant/ Advisor at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.

75. Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of OP-7, has submitted before the DG that Mr. Rajeev
Dudhani, Consultant/ Advisor at OP-7, was working as a commission/ liaison agent for
railways business and he was responsible for marketing and quality control for HPPA
Bushes orders. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail communications to and fro
the other OPs have been sent/ received by Mr. Rajeev Dudhani with respect to the
cartel arrangement.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 70
76. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Rajeev Dudhani liable in terms
of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-7.

(7) Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.

77. Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of OP-7, has submitted before the DG that Mr. Rajesh R.,
Senior Manager, Operations at OP-7, was the authorised person for filing bids on behalf
of OP-7 in the tenders floated by the Indian Railways for HPPA Bushes. In his
submission before the DG, Mr. Rajesh R. has acknowledged that he used to
communicate with other manufacturers of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes to discuss and finalise
bids to be submitted for tenders of Indian Railways. As detailed above, several e-mail
communications to and fro the other OPs sent/ received by Mr. Rajesh R. show his
clear involvement in the cartel arrangement.

78. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Rajesh R. liable in terms of
Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-7.

(8) Mr. Vishnu N.M., Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd.

79. The DG has noted that Mr. Vishnu N.M., was one of the Managing Partners of
partnership firm OP-8.

80. Hence, being in-charge of and responsible to OP-8 for the conduct of its business,
which responsibility has not been denied by Mr. Vishnu in his suggestions/ objections
to the DG Report, the Commission finds Mr. Vishnu N.M. liable in terms of Section
48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-8.

(9) Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd.

81. The DG has noted that Mr. Venkata Subramanyam was also one of the Managing
Partners of partnership firm OP-8.

82. Hence, being in-charge of and responsible to OP-8 for the conduct of its business,
which responsibility has not been denied by Mr. Subramanyam in his suggestions/
objections to the DG Report, the Commission finds Mr. Venkata Subramanyam liable
in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-8.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 71
(10) Mr. Harsha Gumballi, Manager (Admin) at Polymer Products of India Ltd.

83. The DG has noted that Mr. Harsha Gumballi was the Manager (Admin) at OP-8. As
detailed above, there are several e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs sent/
received by Mr. Harsha Gumballi with respect to the cartel arrangement.

84. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Harsha Gumballi liable in
terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-8.

(11) Mr. Salimuddin, Managing Partner of M/s Micro Engineers

85. The DG has noted that Mr. Salimuddin was the Managing Partner of OP-9 and he was
responsible for the day-to-day activities of the company. He was also aware of the
receipt of e-mails from OP-4 with respect to the cartel arrangement.

86. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Salimuddin liable in terms of
Section 48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-9.

(12) Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM
Surlon India Ltd.)

87. The DG has noted that Mr. Luv Kumar was one of the three Directors of OP-10. He
admitted before the DG that all approved vendors in the market for supply of HPPA
Bushes were participating in a cartel. He also admitted to have been a part of the cartel..
He admitted that there were two physical meetings during 2014-2020 between the OPs,
one of which he attended in 2016 at JW Marriott, Aero city, Delhi, which was called by
Polyset Group for discussing market share of each vendor pursuant to inclusion of
Black Burn Group in the cartel. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail
communications are on record which have been sent/ received by Mr. Luv Kumar to
and fro the other OPs.

88. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Luv Kumar liable in terms of
both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-10.

(13) Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing at Quadrant EPP Surlon India
Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)

89. Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of OP-10, in his submission before the DG, has stated that
Mr. R. K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing of OP-10, was responsible for filing of

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 72
bids on behalf of the company. Mr. R.K Singh also has admitted that he was
responsible for filing bids on behalf of company, however, he has contended that the
final rates were submitted after discussion with the Directors. There are also multiple e-
mail communications on record which have been sent/ received by Mr. R.K. Singh, to
and fro the other OPs.

90. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. R.K. Singh liable in terms of
Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-10.

(14) Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd.

91. The DG has noted that Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of OP-11, has been stated by
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, to be a family friend who had started the business of
OP-11 on Mr. Somani's proposal.

92. Hence, being in-charge of and responsible to OP-11 for the conduct of its business,
which responsibility has not been denied by Mr. Tapuriah in his suggestions/ objections
to the DG Report, the Commission finds Mr. Shirish Tapuriah liable in terms of Section
48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-11.

Conclusion:

93. The Commission, hence, holds OP-1 to OP-11 guilty of contravention of the provisions
of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with 3(1) of the Act.

94. As far as individuals' liability is concerned, the Commission holds the following
individuals of the OPs liable under Section 48 of the Act, for the anti-competitive
conduct of their respective companies:
(i) Mr. Alok Somani, Partner of Moulded Fibreglass Products and Director of
Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
(ii) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and Partner of
Power Mould and M/s Anju Techno Industries
(iii) Ms. Shanta Sohoni, Employee at Polyset Plastics Private Ltd.
(iv) Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director of Calstar Steel Ltd.
(v) Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.
(vi) Mr. Rajeev Dudhani, Consultant/ Advisor at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 73
(vii) Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.
(viii) Mr. Vishnu N.M., Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd.
(ix) Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India
Ltd.
(x) Mr. Harsha Gumballi, Manager (Admin) at Polymer Products of India Ltd.
(xi) Mr. Salimuddin, Managing Partner of M/s Micro Engineers;
(xii) Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM
Surlon India Ltd.)
(xiii) Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing at Quadrant EPP Surlon India
Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)
(xiv) Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Penalty and lesser penalty:

95. Once contravention of the provisions of the Act has been established, the Commission
now proceeds to determine the penalty, if any, to be imposed upon the contravening
parties, under the provisions of Section 27(b) of the Act.

96. Under Section 27(b) of the Act, where after inquiry, the Commission finds that any
agreement referred to in Section 3, or action of an enterprise in a dominant position is
in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act, as the case may be, it may impose
upon each of such persons or enterprises which are parties to such agreements or abuse,
such penalty, as it may deem fit, which shall be not more than ten percent of the
average of the turnover for the last three preceding financial years.

97. Accordingly, in terms of the said provision, the Commission decides to compute the
penalty to be imposed upon the OPs. Considering the nature of the cartel arrangement,
the mitigating factors submitted by the OPs, and the fact that several of the OPs are
MSMEs, the Commission decides to impose upon the OPs, penalty @5% of the
average of their turnover generated from the sale of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, for
the last three preceding financial years.

98. The same is calculated as under:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 74
Moulded Fibreglass Products (OP-1) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 3,56,70,145
2018-19 3,93,63,598
2019-20 2,27,39,892
Total 9,77,73,635
Average 3,25,91,212
Penalty 16,29,561

Power Mould (OP-2) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 3,74,39,979
2018-19 1,86,63,933
2019-20 1,08,360
Total 5,62,12,272
Average 1,87,37,424
Penalty 9,36,871

Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 4,57,70,758
2018-19 4,32,09,639
2019-20 3,30,62,990
Total 12,20,43,387
Average 4,06,81,129
Penalty 20,34,056

Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. (OP-4) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 8,97,149
2018-19 2,85,120
2019-20 1,84,211
Total 13,66,480
Average 4,55,493
Penalty 22,775

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 75
Anju Techno Industries (OP-5) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 76,55,704
2018-19 3,81,19,042
2019-20 4,40,22,635
Total 8,97,97,381
Average 2,99,32,460
Penalty 14,96,623

Calstar Steel Ltd. (OP-6) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 2,03,16,375
2018-19 1,57,29,968
2019-20 3,32,70,402
Total 6,93,16,745
Average 2,31,05,582
Penalty 11,55,279

Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (OP-7) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 4,58,37,391
2018-19 1,46,75,515
2019-20 92,16,108
Total 6,97,29,014
Average 2,32,43,005
Penalty 11,62,150

Polymer Products of India Ltd. (OP-8) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 6,93,357
2018-19 40,75,909
2019-20 1,80,98,151
Total 2,28,67,417
Average 76,22,472
Penalty 3,81,124

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 76
M/s Micro Engineers (OP-9) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 -
2018-19 -
2019-20 -
Total -
Average -
Penalty -

Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM
Surlon India Ltd.) (OP-10) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 1,27,83,494
2018-19 2,42,62,622
2019-20 1,65,80,138
Total 5,36,26,254
Average 1,78,75,418
Penalty 8,93,771

Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. (OP-11) (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER
2017-18 -
2018-19 4,35,710
2019-20 -
Total 4,35,710
Average 1,45,237
Penalty 7,262

99. Similarly, with regard to the individuals of the OPs found liable in terms of Section 48
of the Act for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective companies/firms, the
Commission decides to impose penalty @5% of the average of their incomes, for the
last three preceding financial years. The same is calculated as under:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 77
Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1 and OP-3 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 73,16,867
2018-19 84,32,050
2019-20 84,58,423
Total 2,42,07,340
Average 80,69,113
Penalty 4,03,456

Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 2,64,01,175
2018-19 1,78,79,477
2019-20 1,73,41,330
Total 6,16,21,982
Average 2,05,40,661
Penalty 10,27,033

Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 5,65,203
2018-19 4,35,566
2019-20 Not filed
Total 10,00,769
Average 5,00,385
Penalty 25,019

Ms. Vikas Agarwal of OP-6 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 47,65,700
2018-19 46,87,591
2019-20 35,09,590
Total 1,29,62,881
Average 43,20,960
Penalty 2,16,048

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 78
Ms. Vishal Baid of OP-7 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 46,44,562
2018-19 80,61,760
2019-20 1,60,98,510
Total 2,88,04,832
Average 96,01,611
Penalty 4,80,081

Ms. Rajiv Dhudani of OP-7 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 45,78,121
2018-19 10,21,789
2019-20 6,98,540
Total 62,98,450
Average 20,99,483
Penalty 1,04,974

Ms. Rajesh R. of OP-7 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 6,88,858
2018-19 5,61,052
2019-20 2,29,620
Total 14,79,530
Average 4,93,177
Penalty 24,659

Mr. Vishnu N.M. of OP-8 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 1,28,04,802
2018-19 2,03,25,886
2019-20 4,40,84,434
Total 7,72,15,122
Average 2,57,38,374
Penalty 12,86,919

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 79
Mr. Venkata Subramanyam of OP-8 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 1,09,44,352
2018-19 1,89,43,577
2019-20 4,16,87,966
Total 7,15,75,895
Average 2,38,58,632
Penalty 11,92,932

Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 4,00,000
2018-19 4,19,200
2019-20 3,81,180
Total 12,00,380
Average 4,00,127
Penalty 20,006

Mr. Salimuddin of OP-9 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 19,85,720
2018-19 15,57,021
2019-20 -
Total 35,42,741
Average 11,80,914
Penalty 59,046

Mr. Luv Kumar of OP-10 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 30,28,652
2018-19 68,47,884
2019-20 Not filed
Total 98,76,536
Average 49,38,268
Penalty 2,46,913

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 80
Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 6,19,788
2018-19 6,66,401
2019-20 7,19,670
Total 20,05,859
Average 6,68,620
Penalty 33,431

Mr. Shirish Tapuriah of OP-11 (In ₹)
FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME
2017-18 8,86,994
2018-19 10,71,370
2019-20 Not Filed
Total 19,58,364
Average 9,79,182
Penalty 48,959

100. Regarding lesser penalty, the Commission notes that though OP-3 was the first lesser
penalty applicant to approach the Commission, yet it had approached the Commission
as a lesser penalty applicant only after investigation in the matter had been ordered.
Having said that, it is noted that full and true disclosures of information and evidence
and continuous co-operation provided by OP-3 and its individual enabled in
establishing contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act by the OPs, as
brought out supra. As such, on a holistic consideration of the matter, the Commission
decides to grant to OP-3 and Mr. Alok Somani, 80% reduction in the penalty amount
imposed upon them.

101. The second lesser penalty applicant before the Commission was OP-1. The
Commission notes that in terms of the disclosures and evidence provided, OP-1 was not
able to provide much value addition to the information, material and documents already
provided by OP-3 through its lesser penalty application. Nonetheless, full and true
disclosures of information and evidence and continuous co-operation provided by OP-1
helped the Commission in establishing contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)
of the Act by the OPs. As such, the Commission decides to grant to OP-1, 40%
reduction in the penalty amount imposed upon it.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 81
102. The third lesser penalty applicant before the Commission was OP-7. OP-7 has
requested lesser penalty for itself and its individuals viz. Mr. Vishal Baid, Mr. Rajeev
Dudhani and Mr. Rajesh R. The Commission notes that OP-7 was the third lesser
penalty applicant and by the time of its application, the DG already had in its
possession, from the lesser penalty applications filed by OP-3 and OP-1, quite a lot of
evidence required for establishing a cartel. However, some evidence submitted by OP-7
has been used by the Commission to form a complete trail evidencing anti-competitive
conduct of the OPs; therefore, providing value addition to the investigation of the DG.
Further, OP-7 has also disclosed to the Commission about existence of another cartel
arrangement. Given the stage at which OP-7 came forward with the disclosures, the
quality of information provided by OP-7, the evidence already in possession of the DG
at that time, and the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, and the factum
of disclosure of another cartel by OP-7, the Commission decides to grant to OP-7 and
its three individuals, reduction in penalty to the tune of 30% of the total penalty
leviable.

103. The last lesser penalty applicant before the Commission was OP-10. OP-10 has
requested lesser penalty for itself and its individuals viz. Mr. R.K. Singh and Mr. Luv
Kumar. With regard to OP-10 also, it is noted that by the time application from OP-10
was received, the DG already had in its possession, from the lesser penalty applications
filed by OP-3, OP-1 and OP-7, most of the evidence on the basis of which cartelisation
in the present matter has been established. However, some evidence submitted by OP-
10 has been used by the Commission above to form a complete trail evidencing anti-
competitive conduct of the OPs, as such providing value addition to the investigation of
the DG. Therefore, given the stage at which OP-10 came forward with the disclosures,
the quality of information provided by OP-10, the evidence already in possession of the
DG at that time, and the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Commission decides to grant to OP-10 and its two individuals, reduction in penalty to
the tune of 20% of the total penalty leviable.

104. Consequently, the penalty amounts imposed upon and payable by the OPs are as
follows:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 82
(In ₹)
Penalty Penalty payable
S. No. Name of Party
OP Imposed after reduction
1. OP-1 Moulded Fibreglass Products 16,29,561 9,77,737
2. OP-2 Power Mould 9,36,871 9,36,871
3. OP-3 Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 20,34,056 4,06,811
4. OP-4 Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. 22,775 22,775
5. OP-5 M/s Anju Techno Industries 14,96,623 14,96,623
6. OP-6 Calstar Steel Ltd. 11,55,279 11,55,279
7. OP-7 Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 11,62,150 8,13,505
8. OP-8 Polymer Products of India Ltd. 3,81,124 3,81,124
9. OP-9 M/s Micro Engineers Nil Nil
Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd.
10. OP-10 8,93,771 7,15,017
(now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)
11. OP-11 Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. 7,262 7,262
105. As far as the individuals of the OPs are concerned, the penalty amounts calculated for
them and payable by them are as follows:
(In ₹)
Penalty
S. Penalty
Name of Party payable after
No. Imposed
reduction
Mr. Alok Somani of Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
1. 4,03,456 80,691
and Moulded Fibreglass Products
Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of Power Mould, Polyset
2. Plastics Private Ltd. and M/s Anju Techno 10,27,033 10,27,033
Industries
3. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. 25,019 25,019
4. Mr. Vikas Agarwal of Calstar Steel Ltd. 2,16,048 2,16,048
5. Mr. Vishal Baid of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 4,80,081 3,36,057
6. Mr. Rajeev Dhudani of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 1,04,974 73,482
7. Mr. Rajesh R. of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 24,659 17,261
8. Mr. Vishnu N.M. of Polymer Products of India Ltd. 12,86,919 12,86,919
Mr. Venkata Subramanyam of Polymer Products of
9. 11,92,932 11,92,932
India Ltd.
Mr. Harsha Gumballi of Polymer Products of India
10. 20,006 20,006
Ltd.
11. Mr. Salimuddin of M/s Micro Engineers 59,046 59,046
Mr. Luv Kumar of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd.
12. 3,24,381 2,59,505
(now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 83
Penalty
S. Penalty
Name of Party payable after
No. Imposed
reduction
Mr. R.K. Singh of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd.
13. 33,431 26,745
(now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)
14. Mr. Shirish Tapuriah of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. 48,959 48,959
106. In view of the above, the Commission passes the following:

ORDER

107. OP-1 to OP-11 are found guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)3(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Further, 14 individuals of the OPs are found liable in terms of Section 48 of the Act, for the anti- competitive conduct of their respective entities.

108. The Commission, in terms of Section 27(a) of the Act, directs the parties to cease and desist in future from indulging in any practice/conduct/activity, which has been found in the present order to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, as detailed in the earlier part of this order.

109. Further, under the provisions of Section 27(b) of the Act, the Commission directs the following parties to pay the following amounts of penalty:

S.                                                        Amount of
                      Name of Party                                             Amount in Words
No.                                                      Penalty (In ₹)
                                                                          Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy
1.      Moulded Fibreglass Products                        9,77,737       Seven     Thousand      Seven
                                                                          Hundred and Thirty Seven Only
                                                                          Rupees Nine Lacs Thirty Six
2.      Power Mould                                        9,36,871       Thousand Eight Hundred and
                                                                          Seventy One Only
                                                                          Rupees Four Lacs Six Thousand
3.      Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd.                       4,06,811
                                                                          Eight Hundred and Eleven Only
                                                                          Rupees Twenty Two Thousand
4.      Polyset Plastics Private Ltd.                       22,775        Seven Hundred and Seventy
                                                                          Five Only
                                                                          Rupees Fourteen Lacs Ninety
5.      M/s Anju Techno Industries                         14,96,623      Six Thousand Six Hundred and
                                                                          Twenty Three Only
6.      Calstar Steel Ltd.                                 11,55,279      Rupees Eleven Lacs Fifty Five



     Reference Case No. 03 of 2018                                                                   84
 S.                                                 Amount of
                      Name of Party                                      Amount in Words
No.                                               Penalty (In ₹)
                                                                   Thousand Two Hundred and
                                                                   Seventy Nine Only
                                                                   Rupees Eight Lacs Thirteen
7.      Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.                       8,13,505       Thousand Five Hundred and
                                                                   Five Only
                                                                   Rupees Three Lacs Eighty One
8.      Polymer Products of India Ltd.              3,81,124       Thousand One Hundred and
                                                                   Twenty Four Only
9.  M/s Micro Engineers                                Nil         Nil
    Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now                            Rupees Seven Lacs Fifteen
10.                                                 7,15,017
    MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)                                        Thousand and Seventeen Only
                                                                   Rupees Seven Thousand Two
11. Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd.                        7,262
                                                                   Hundred and Sixty Two Only

Mr. Alok Somani of Black Burn and Rupees Eighty Thousand Six

12. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Moulded Fibreglass 80,691 Hundred and Ninety One Only Products Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of Power Mould, Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Seven

13. Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and M/s 10,27,033 Thousand and Thirty Three Anju Techno Industries Only Ms. Shanta Sohoni of Polyset Plastics Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

14. 25,019 Private Ltd. and Nineteen Only Rupees Two Lacs Sixteen

15. Mr. Vikas Agarwal of Calstar Steel Ltd. 2,16,048 Thousand and Forty Eight Only Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Six

16. Mr. Vishal Baid of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 3,36,057 Thousand and Fifty Seven Only Rupees Seventy Three Mr. Rajeev Dhudani of Jai Polypan Pvt.

17. 73,482 Thousand Four Hundred and Ltd.

Eighty Two Only Rupees Seventeen Thousand

18. Mr. Rajesh R. of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 17,261 Two Hundred and Sixty One Only Rupees Twelve Lacs Eighty Six Mr. Vishnu N.M. of Polymer Products

19. 12,86,919 Thousand Nine Hundred and of India Ltd.

Nineteen Only Rupees Eleven Lacs Ninety Mr. Venkata Subramanyam of Polymer

20. 11,92,932 Two Thousand Nine Hundred Products of India Ltd.

and Thirty Two Only Mr. Harsha Gumballi of Polymer Rupees Twenty Thousand and

21. 20,006 Products of India Ltd. Six Only Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 85 S. Amount of Name of Party Amount in Words No. Penalty (In ₹) Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand

22. Mr. Salimuddin of M/s Micro Engineers 59,046 and Forty Six Only Mr. Luv Kumar of Quadrant EPP Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Nine

23. Surlon India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon 2,59,505 Thousand Five Hundred and India Ltd.) Five Only Mr. R.K. Singh of Quadrant EPP Surlon Rupees Twenty Six Thousand

24. India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon India 26,745 Seven Hundred and Forty Five Ltd.) Only Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Mr. Shirish Tapuriah of Skylark

25. 48,959 Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Only

110. The parties mentioned in the table above are directed to deposit their respective penalty amounts within 60 days of the receipt of the present order.

111. It is made clear that all information used in the present order is for the purposes of the Act and as such, in terms of Section 57 of the Act, does not qualify for grant of confidential treatment.

112. The Secretary is directed to forward certified copy of the present order to the parties through their respective legal counsel, accordingly.

Sd/-

(Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson Sd/-

(Sangeeta Verma) Member Sd/-

        New Delhi                                                     (Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi)
        Date: 04.04.2022                                              Member




  Reference Case No. 03 of 2018                                                               86

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Competition Commission of India

In Re: Chief Materials Manager, North ... vs Moulded Fibreglass Products And Others on 4 April, 2022