On June 19, 2018, CCI disposed off information filed by Singhal Industries Private Limited (‘SIPL’) against Sparco Multiplast Private Limited (‘Sparco’) alleging abuse of dominant position and the presence of anti-competitive agreements by Sparco under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.SIPL alleged that the Gas Authority of India Limited (‘GAIL’), one of its important customers, had rejected its ‘Warning Mats’ in favour of Sparco’s ‘Wire Mesh’ even though its product was technically superior to that of Sparco.  It was further alleged that Sparco had entered into an agreement with two French companies, Corelco and Courant, to prevent them from supplying warning mesh manufacturing machines to any other company in India other than Sparco.CCI noted that the allegation that the allegation that Sparco’s product was inferior to that of SIPL was not sustainable. CCI noted that GAIL, as a consumer, had the freedom to choose and opt for a product which suited its requirements. It was further noted that there was no material on record to suggest that Sparco had monopolised warning mesh production by way of an alleged tie-up arrangement or agreement with Corelco and Courant. It was observed that the aforesaid companies were not supplying such products in India to begin with.  Accordingly, CCI held that no contravention under Section 3 of the Competition was made out.CCI further noted that there were several players which were active in the ‘market for warning mesh and mat used for protection of the underground pipelines in India’. Further as per the data for the year 2016-17 available in Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Prowess database, the total sales and assets of SIPL were more than that of Sparco. Accordingly, CCI held that Sparco was not dominant in this market and as such no contravention of Section 4 was made out as well. In light of the above, CCI  disposed off the information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.

*Case No.13 of 2018.