Get App
Download App Scanner
Scan to Download
Advertisement

CCI Junks Complaint Against Godrej & Boyce, Others Over Alleged Abuse Of Dominance

CCI rejects anti-competitive conduct complaint against Godrej & Boyce in institutional furniture market due to lack of prima facie evidence of dominance abuse.

CCI Junks Complaint Against Godrej & Boyce, Others Over Alleged Abuse Of Dominance
Godrej & Boyce does not appear to hold a dominant position in the institutional furniture market.
Photo: Godrej Website

Fair trade regulator CCI has rejected a complaint of anti-competitive conduct against Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd and others, saying there is no prima facie evidence of abuse of dominance in the institutional furniture market.

The complainants alleged that the company influenced government procuring entities, including NBCC, NTPC and IIT Delhi, to draft tender specifications around its proprietary products, thereby restricting competition and denying rival manufacturers market access.

To assess the matter, the regulator considered the 'market for the supply of institutional furniture in India' as the relevant one.

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd operates in diverse business divisions, offering consumer, office and industrial products and services. 'Godrej Interio' is the home and office furniture brand of Godrej Enterprises Group.

In an order passed on Thursday, the regulator observed that Godrej & Boyce does not appear to hold a dominant position in the institutional furniture market.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) noted that the company has a 15 per cent market share and faces competition from several players, including Durian Furniture, Nilkamal, Wooden Street, Urban Ladder, and Kernig Krafts Furniture.

"The Commission is of the view that, since OP-1 (Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd) does not appear to be dominant in the relevant market, the alleged abuse need not be examined," it said.

The regulator also found no material to indicate bid rigging or any agreement between the company and other bidders or procuring entities.

CCI said framing of technical specifications is primarily the responsibility of procuring entities, and that the mere similarity of tender specifications to a manufacturer's products cannot, by itself, establish collusion or anti-competitive conduct.

"...the Commission is of the opinion that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is made out against the OPs," CCI said in the order.

Sections 3 and 4 pertain to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, respectively. 

Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.

Newsletters

Update Email
to get newsletters straight to your inbox
⚠️ Add your Email ID to receive Newsletters
Note: You will be signed up automatically after adding email

News for You

Set as Trusted Source
on Google Search
Add NDTV Profit As Google Preferred Source