Case No. 103 of 2016. Case: Aditya Automobile Spares Private Limited and Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.. Competition Commision of India

Case Number:Case No. 103 of 2016
Party Name:Aditya Automobile Spares Private Limited and Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Judges:Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member)
Issue:Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4, 4(2)(a)(ii), 4(2)(c)
Judgement Date:March 15, 2017
Court:Competition Commision of India
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. The information in the instant matter has been filed by Aditya Automobile Spares Private Limited and three others ('Informants') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ('OP') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

  2. As stated, the Informants belong to Aditya Group. Informant No. 1 is an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of Bajaj, Hero Honda and TVS and also an authorised dealer for Kinetic, LML and Yamaha. Informant No. 2, an authorised stockist of Maruti Udyog Limited, is engaged in the sale and marketing of Maruti Suzuki's spare parts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Informant No. 3 is engaged in the sale of spare parts of 4-wheeler and light commercial vehicles and Informant No. 4 is engaged in the sale of lubricant oil.

  3. As per the information, the Informants were customers of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. since 2008 and were availing various banking services/facilities such as cash credit (CC), bank guarantee and term loan from it for their business operations and the said services/facilities were successively renewed by ING Vysya Bank with enhancements as per the requirements of the Informants. It is stated that ING Vysya Bank Ltd. was taken over by the OP with all its assets and liabilities with effect from 01.04.2015. The OP introduced itself to the Informants as a dedicated and punctilious bank in providing the above said banking services/facilities and believing the same, the Informants decided to avail the services of the OP. It is stated that the OP had provided various banking facilities/services to the Informants and had sanctioned various credit limits with subsequent renewal and enhancement and that there was no dispute between the Informants and the OP till 2013.

  4. It is stated that in 2013, the Informants approached the OP for reduction in interest rates and enhancement of various credit and bank guarantee limits. The Informants approached Mr. R. Senthil, the local relationship manager of the OP and Mr. N. Rajendran, the regional business head of the OP for the same. However, no commitment was given by him. Rather, without intimating the Informants renewal charges were debited from the accounts of the Informants. Hence, the Informants met Mr. Prabakar Rao, Zonal Head of the OP and Mr. N. Rajendran, regional business head of the OP for the same. However, again no commitments were given and the Informants were informed that their request could not be considered before March, 2014. It is averred that due to such actions of the OP, the business reputation of the Informants suffered and prospects for expansion of business became gloomy.

  5. It is stated that being discontented with the aforesaid conduct of the OP, the Informants decided not to continue with the OP for the aforesaid banking services and rather approached Syndicate Bank for the same. It was agreed that Syndicate Bank would forthwith...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL