What Is Sub-Contracting?

4. Sub-Contracting:

As the term suggests, sub-contracting bidding refers to a scenario when the remaining competitors except the designated winner, agree to not bid, on the condition of receiving subcontracts or supply or ancillary contracts in exchange of their ‘non participation’ in the bidding process. A deviation from this kind of bid rigging can be, when a low bidder agrees to withdraw its bid in favour of the next bidder in exchange for a lucrative sub-contract that divided the illegally obtained higher price between them.

5. Market Division:

Market division or allocation schemes are agreements in which competitors divide markets among themselves. In such schemes, competing firms allocate specific customers or types of customers, products,

3.3. BID RIGGING IN INDIA

The provisions regarding bid rigging as an anti-competitive practice had been mentioned in the erstwhile.The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, (MRTP) as a restrictive trade practice. It stated that:

• An agreement as to the bids which any of the parties thereto may offer at an auction for the sale of goods or;

• Any agreement whereby any party thereto agrees to abstain from bidding at any auction for the sale of goods(8)shall be deemed to be an agreement relating to restrictive trade practice (RTP). Further, it shall be subject to registration, in accordance with the provisions of MRTP, unless such an agreement fell under any one of the following categories(9).

 Had express authority by or under any law which was in force at that time or;

 Had the approval of the Central Government or;

 Had Central Government as one of the

The CCI came to a conclusion that the manufactures indeed had indulged in bid rigging. This conclusion was a result of having worked on factors that increase collusion in a relevant market and considered the issue in the light of Section 19(3) of the Act, i.e. adverse appreciable effect on the competition

2.C-145/2008/DGIR, DDRS (G) – II, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways v M/S RMG Polyvinyl India Ltd., New Delhi &Ors. :

The informant (Railway Board) filed a case against Railways Research and Standard Organisation approved vendors for indulging in cartel like activities, thereby rigging bids for the tender floated by South Eastern Raailways. The vendors had abnormally increased the prices of the PVC sheets (the commodity in question) without any business justification. The case stood transferred to CCI from MRTPC, but since the provisions of Section 3 came into force in 2009 and the alleged activities too place in 2007, the Commission stated that it does not have a 1retrospective jurisdiction to handle the case.

3.15/2010, Jupiter Gaming Solutions Private Limited v Government of