Shri Saurabh Tripathy vs Competition Commission Of India & Anr. on 10 October, 2019
19. Next, he submitted that CCI had erred in observing that MGO
liability was a standard clause across most long-term supply contracts
and negotiated to cover the risk of the seller in committing to sell a fix
quantity on long term basis and to assure the buyer a firm supply of
gas. He submitted that this finding was not correct, as CBM gas could
be produced from several small wells where CBM could be extracted
W.P.(C) 2079/2018 Page 8 of 45
by boring into the wells. He further submitted that CCI's conclusions
was based on facts which were not available from the DG's report.
He stated that CCI had accepted the objections raised by GEECL
without any further inquiry. He also referred to the decision of CCI in
Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. v. GAIL (India) Ltd.: 2017 CompLR
0706 (CCI), whereby CCI had in a similar situation, found it relevant
to inquire into several aspects of different sources of gas procurement,
the nature of arrangement with each supplier including price and
takeover pay liability etc. He submitted that a similar inquiry was also
warranted in the present case, however, CCI had decided to close the
matter without any such inquiry. Next, he referred to certain specific
clauses and submitted that CCI had found no fault with the said
clauses simply on the basis that SRMB and GEECL had negotiated on
the GSPA. He submitted that the said reasoning was perverse and
unsustainable.