Keeping up with Competition - May 2026
A monthly newsletter by Axiom5
Welcome to the May 2026 edition of Keeping Up with Competition, where we highlight the key competition law developments from April 2026.
This past month saw two notable decisions from the Competition Commission of India (CCI). In one decision, the CCI found a large cartel of electrical contractors guilty of bid rigging, but refrained from penalties, prioritising market correction over punitive fines for small enterprises. In the second, the CCI rejected an application for interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act). Separately, alcohol manufacturer AB InBev was successful in obtaining interim relief at the Karnataka High Court (KHC), staying CCI proceedings against it on grounds of natural justice.
We discuss these developments below.
1. The CCI finds 17 contractors guilty of bid rigging in Assam Police tenders (see here)
On 7 April 2026, the CCI passed an order finding 17 electrical contractors guilty of engaging in bid-rigging, cover bidding, and bid rotation in tenders floated by the Assam Police Housing Corporation Limited (APHCL). The tenders were for electrification works across 73 Police Stations under an Assam government scheme, and awarded in April 2018.
An audit of the government scheme, conducted by the Office of the Accountant General (Audit), Assam, later raised suspicions of bid rigging. The Accountant General’s office filed a complaint with the CCI, on the basis of which the CCI initiated suo motu proceedings and directed an investigation.
The Director General (DG) found overwhelming circumstantial and documentary evidence of collusion among the bidders. The CCI concurred, and found a contravention of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act.
The CCI’s finding was based on several “plus factors”:
Similarity in pricing: The CCI noted several common patterns in the bidders’ tender documents. For instance, the winning (L-1) bidders consistently quoted the exact rates estimated by an independent tender consultant, which were not available in the public domain. Further, L-2 and L-3 bidders quoted higher rates in deliberate multiples of 10, 100, or 1000. Additionally, to meet the consultant’s total overall estimated cost, all bidders artificially inflated the price of a single item (Diesel Generators) rather than distributing the GST and other deductions across all items. Further, demand drafts submitted for tender fees across various competing parties were sequentially numbered (indicating that they were procured at the same time) and often procured by a single entity.
Common IP addresses: Bids for supposedly competing entities were frequently uploaded from the exact same IP address and cyber cafe, with mere minutes between submissions. The DG also determined through call data records that several bidders had been in contact with each other while preparing bids.
Replication of consultant errors: The CCI found that the bidders blindly copied specific errors made by the tender consultants. For instance, where the consultant mistakenly estimated the rate for a “Solar Power Plant” instead of the required “Solar Street Light,” the bidders universally quoted the rate for Solar Power Plants.
“Plus factors” are circumstantial evidence relied on by the CCI to establish cartelisation, as direct evidence is usually hard to come by in cartel inquiries. As in this instance, the CCI has previously considered evidence of practices such as communications between bidders (including through pre-bid meetings), bid submissions made through common IP addresses,1 common agents and similarities in tender fee payments2 to establish collusion. While parties have challenged the CCI’s reliance on such circumstantial evidence, by for instance, arguing that the commonalities could be independent actions, they have rarely succeeded. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld CCI’s reliance on plus factors to establish cartelisation on several occasions.3
Despite a finding of contravention, the CCI did not impose any penalties, and instead issued a cease-and-desist direction. This aligns with the CCI’s pragmatic approach4 when parties under inquiry are medium or small enterprises, and large penalties could negatively impact their economic viability. The CCI also duly considered factors such as the bidders’ lack of familiarity with technology and no prior history of competition law violations.
2. The CCI rejects interim relief in OEF tender bid-rigging probe (see here)
On 1 April 2026, the CCI rejected an application for interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act. On 5 March 2026, the CCI had directed the DG to investigate alleged bid rigging in tenders floated by the Ordnance Equipment Factor, Kanpur, based on information filed by Universal Yarns & Tex Pvt. Ltd. (Informant). The Informant sought interim relief, seeking a CCI direction restricting Jupiter Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and Jupiter Coaters Pvt. Ltd. (OPs) from participating in ongoing and future tenders, pending the CCI’s inquiry.
The CCI rejected this application, applying the strict three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court in CCI v SAIL (2010). The Supreme Court held that the CCI must only exercise its powers to grant interim relief if the following conditions are met:
The CCI must be satisfied that a contravention of the Competition Act has taken place or is likely to take place - to a higher degree than when it forms a prima facie view under Section 26 of the Competition Act;
It is necessary to issue an order of restraint; and
The material on record indicates that there is a definite apprehension of irreparable and irretrievable damage to the applicant for interim relief or adverse effect on competition to the market, if interim relief is not granted.
The CCI observed that the Informant failed to establish a strong enough prima facie case to warrant such a “far-reaching” direction at this stage. Crucially, the CCI noted that restraining the OPs from participating in ongoing and future public tenders could inadvertently distort the market by reducing the number of competing bidders. The CCI held that the balance of convenience did not favor the Informant, as any potential injury could be adequately addressed upon the final determination of the matter, whereas barring participation now could have significant adverse commercial and market implications.
The CCI has thus far granted interim relief in only 6 instances.
3. The Karnataka High Court halts proceedings against Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited (see here)
On 16 April, 2026, the KHC granted interim relief to Anheuser Busch InBev India Limited (AB InBev) and halted CCI proceedings against it. AB InBev filed a writ petition challenging the DG’s change of its status from a third party (participating in the investigation to assist the DG) to an opposite party (i.e. under investigation for alleged contraventions) in the inquiry. AB InBev claimed that the DG lacked the authority under the Competition Act to alter its status, relying on a decision from the Madras High Court.5 The KHC stayed CCI proceedings against AB InBev as an opposite party until the next date of hearing, noting that the issue needed a deeper examination.
See for instance, LPG Cylinders and Composite Brake Blocks.
See for instance, Pune Municipal Corporation.
See for instance, Klassy Enterprises, Ambuja Cements and Ceat Ltd.
In MRF, the Madras High Court (MHC) noted the distinction between a third party and an opposite party in a CCI inquiry. It held that the CCI ought to have granted MRF the opportunity to be heard prior to its status being changed from a third party to being impleaded as an opposite party and issued a “speaking order” recording the CCI’s reasons for including MRF as a party under investigation. The KHC noted that although the MRF decision has been appealed to a division bench, it has not been stayed, and therefore, its principles “continue to hold the field”.