PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION (PSMA) AND MEMBER UNDERTAKINGS vs S. 4 — 2022 CLD 1068 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2022 CLD 1068 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
Year
2022
Reporter
CLD
Parties
PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION (PSMA) AND MEMBER UNDERTAKINGS vs S. 4
Provisions referred to
S. 4---; S. 4

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION (PSMA) AND MEMBER UNDERTAKINGS VS S. 4--- Prohibited agreement--- Collusive tendering--- Scope---Competition Commission issued a show cause notice for prima facie violation of S. 4(2)(c) as an association of undertakings and its participating member undertakings were fixing or setting quantity of productions post-bid, despite the tender being competitively awarded to few undertakings, in an attempt to share the profits from the same---[Per Ms. Rahat Kaunain Hassan, Chairperson and Mujtaba Ahmad Lodhi, Member (Majority view): Letter from the association to procuring agency revealed that the association itself had admitted that the tender had been allotted to few participants who had quoted large quantities at the minimum rate---Association was actively found to interfere in the competitive process of awarding the tender by stating that the same was extremely unfair and that the law required that all parties who had participated in the tender to be asked to match the lowest established rate---Choice to participate in a competitive bid and the submission of bid rates were all independent commercial decisions to be made by each individual undertaking---Association's conduct negated the whole concept behind a competitive tender by advocating division of the tender amongst all participating undertakings only to take away the award of tender from successful bidders for the clear purpose of accommodating those who were unsuccessful, largely for their own financial security---Competition Commission imposed penalty on the undertakings and directed them to discontinue the violations]---[Per Ms. Shaista Bano, Member and Ms. Bushra Naz Malik, Member (Minority view): No direct evidence was available to prove that the procuring agency had itself asked for the quantity of product to be split between the member undertakings---No contravention of S. 4(1) read with S. 4(2)(c) was made out by the association or member undertakings.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English