The Delhi High Court has sought response from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Competition Commission of India and others on a petition by Apollo Tyres seeking to restrain the anti-trust body from carrying out further investigation in a 2019 case related to the alleged anti-competitive practices by the tyre companies.
Justice Sanjeev Narula issued notice to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Competition Commission of India and its director general, and Haryana government on a petition by Apollo Tyres seeking setting aside of the CCI’s November 3 last year’s order directing its investigative arm to probe further. It will hear the case next on January 6.
Apollo Tyres told the HC that the investigation by the director general (DG) was still going on in the case after the competition watchdog had been granted multiple extensions.
As per the general mandate, the investigation in a case of violation of Section 3 or Section 4 is time sensitive. “Specifically, Regulation 20(2) of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 provides that the anti-trust body shall direct its DG to submit a report ordinarily within 60 days. In this case, there are 14 extensions (mostly of 150 days) which have been granted by the CCI to the DG to investigate the matter,” it added.
A violation which allegedly took place in 2018 has been under investigation by the CCI and its investigative arm for more than six years and any such delayed investigation or any competitive analysis at this stage will not have any positive impact on the market, irrespective of its findings, Apollo Tyres said.
Apollo Tyres had invited tenders for purchase of new steel radial tyres of different sizes and specifications. Only one bidder i.e., J.K Tyre and Industries had participated in such tender. However, the rates were considered as quite high by the Haryana Government.
The state government in July 2019 made a reference against J.K Tyre in terms of Section 19 (1) (b) of the Competition Act, 2002, accusing it of indulging in ‘anti-competitive agreements.’ Thereafter, in the same year, the competition watchdog issued a prima facie opinion that there seemed to be a violation of Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the 2002 Act. The antitrust body asked its director general to investigate the case.
Initially, Apollo Tyres was asked to submit information as a third party and was not made an opposite party. Later, Apollo Tyres and other manufacturers including MRF Ltd were made opposite parties in the case.
The manufacturer had sought a direction to the CCI to give it the two confidential reports – the DG’s July last year’s report and the competition watchdog’s direction to the DG to submit a supplementary probe report – as these were not made available to it.
