Introduction
In the case of Uday B. Bhatt v. Sarfarazbhai Rafique Bhai Ravani[i], the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) addressed allegations of anti-competitive practices within the ship recycling industry. Mr. Uday B. Bhatt, representing the Ship Recycling Industries Association (‘Informant’), accused the respondents of manipulating market prices by spreading false information via WhatsApp groups, thereby violating ss. 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Competition Act’).
Brief Facts
The Informant filed a complaint alleging that the respondents (‘OPs’) acted as intermediaries in the market for ship recycling materials, specifically scrap iron. The OPs, based in Gujarat and Punjab, were accused of manipulating prices by disseminating false rates through WhatsApp groups, adversely affecting sellers and customers.
The Informant claimed this behaviour constituted an indirect agreement among the OPs to form a cartel, violating s. 3 of the Competition Act. Additionally, he argued that this manipulation would lead to an abuse of dominant position in the future, contravening s. 4 of the Competition Act.
The Informant supported his claims with an FIR filed against unknown individuals and two newspaper articles detailing the complaint of spreading false prices. He requested interim relief under s. 33 of the Competition Act to restrain the OPs from continuing these activities during the investigation.
Held
The CCI directed the closing of the information filed under s. 26(2) of the Competition Act, and the request for interim relief under s. 30 of the Competition Act was also denied on the following grounds:
No Prima Facie Evidence of Cartelisation: The Informant did not provide substantial evidence of cartelisation. The presence of multiple buyers and sellers in the market and the day-to-day negotiation of prices suggested a lack of coordinated effort to manipulate prices. Hence, no contravention of s. 3 of the Competition Act.
No Inquiry into Joint/Collective Dominance: The CCI noted that the Competition Act does not provide for inquiries into cases of joint or collective dominance. Therefore, the allegations that the OPs might collectively abuse their dominant position in the future were not actionable under s. 4 of the Competition Act.
Our Analysis
The CCI’s ruling reinforced the standards for proving anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act. Mere allegations, backed by preliminary documents such as FIRs or media reports, are insufficient without clear proof of a coordinated effort among the OPs. This set a high evidentiary bar for informants, necessitating thorough evidence collection and documentation before filing complaints.
The CCI’s observation regarding the presence of multiple buyers and sellers and daily price negotiations are very vital parameters for assessing the competitive nature of the market and the likelihood of cartelisation. Moreover, the decision reiterates the legal position that the Competition Act does not cover joint or collective dominance. This limitation narrows the scope for addressing concerns of coordinated market behaviour unless individual dominance can be clearly established.
End Note
[i] [2024] 163 taxmann.com 324 (CCI)
Authored by Priyavansh Kaushik, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.