Sep 30, 2022

CCI Penalizes Yash Solutions and Others for Engaging in Bid-Rigging and Other Cartel Conduct

On April 04, 2022, CCI accepted allegations of bid-rigging and cartel conduct against Yash Solutions (‘OP-1’), M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal (‘OP-2’), M/s Siddhi Vinayak (‘OP-3’), M/s Saraswati Sales Corporation (‘OP-4’), M/s Austere System Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-5’), Delicacy Continental Pvt. Ltd (‘OP-6’), Fimo Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd (‘OP-7’), M/s Toyfort (‘OP-8’) and Chaitanya Business Outsourcing Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-9’) (together ‘OPs’). [1]

The complaint alleged bid-rigging in two e-tenders invited by the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh for soil sample testing. As per the complaint, the documents submitted by the OPs for the bidding process had numerous red flags including, fake documents, same auditor for two OPs with the reports dated on the same date, and same place of business marked in the documents for more than one OP. Further, the complaint alleged that as a result of the collusive bidding, OPs have divided the areas amongst themselves for specific regions.

Based on evidence collected by the DG, CCI found that: (i) certain OPs and their individuals to have acted in a concert manner to rig the e-tenders; and (ii) the OPs and their individuals also resorted to the production and submission of fake invoices and certificates, to make certain OPs eligible to participate in the bidding process to effectively act as cover bidders, some of these OPs did not have prior experience and were blacklisted.

CCI concluded that none of the OPs or their individuals have been able to rebut the evidence found against them by the DG of having indulged in anti-competitive conduct and manipulating the bids/bid rigging in respect of the two e-tenders. It directed the OPs to cease and desist from indulging in similar practices and imposed penalty: (i) on the OPs at the rate of 5% of the average turnover for the three financial years from 2017-2020; and (ii) on individual of the OPs at the rate of 5 percent of their average income of the financial years.


[1] Suo Moto Case No. 01 of 2020




These are the views and opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm. This article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal or other advice and you acknowledge that there is no relationship (implied, legal or fiduciary) between you and the author/AZB. AZB does not claim that the article's content or information is accurate, correct or complete, and disclaims all liability for any loss or damage caused through error or omission.