Case No. 07 of 2026, Adv. Aditya Tripathi and another v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others

Background

Two informations were filed by Adv. Aditya Tripathi and Adv. Arun Gaur (‘Informants’), against Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (‘Godrej’) and fifteen procuring entities, alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Informants alleged systemic manipulation of the public procurement process in the institutional furniture market, whereby procuring entities framed tender specifications, line drawings, and photographs that were exact replications of Godrej’s proprietary product catalogue, the effect of which was to facilitate Godrej to win these tenders, which effectively foreclosed competition and denied market access to rival manufacturers. The Informants relied upon market intelligence analysis for the calendar year 2024, which indicated that Godrej participated in 201 tenders valued at INR 1,072.81 crores, secured 88 contracts (approximately 43.7% win rate) valued at INR 301.02 crores, while competitors achieved zero wins despite participating in 17 tenders each and for calendar year 2023, the Informants stated that Godrej captured 98.9% of total awarded value.

CCI Findings

The CCI delineated the relevant product market as the ‘Market for supply of Institutional Furniture’, noting that institutional furniture including hospital furniture, office workstations, laboratory furniture, and other specialised fixtures is not interchangeable with ordinary retail furniture due to differences in technical specifications, compliance standards, bulk procurement requirements, customisation and installation obligations, and after-sales service commitments. The relevant geographic market was determined to be India, given homogenous conditions for competition. The relevant market was accordingly delineated as the ‘Market for supply of Institutional Furniture in India’. On the question of dominance, the CCI noted the presence of multiple players in the institutional furniture market, and the institutional furniture market in India is estimated at INR 50,000–60,000 crores and that Godrej held approximately 15% market share in the institutional furniture segment, with an aspiration to increase it to over 20%.

On this basis, the CCI concluded that Godrej does not prima facie appear to be dominant in the relevant market and accordingly held that the alleged abuse under Section 4 of the Act need not be examined. On the allegation of bid rigging under Section 3(3)(d), the CCI held that no material had been placed on record demonstrating any agreement, arrangement, or concerted practice between Godrej and other bidders, and that mere participation in tenders with specifications resembling its products, absent evidence of its involvement in framing those specifications or collusion with competing bidders, does not establish bid rigging.  The CCI observed that a high win rate by itself cannot constitute evidence of collusion, and that the Informants’ statistical analysis contained computational inconsistencies and anomalies, including unreported competitor success rates, and instances where tenders awarded exceeded tenders participated in.