Case No. 87 of 2014. Case: Bharat Garage Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 87 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Neela Gokhale, Advocate
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mittal, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 3, 4
Judgement DateFebruary 24, 2015
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

  1. The present information is filed by Bharat Garage, a partnership firm, through its partner Mr. Suresh Mehta (hereinafter referred to as the "Informant") under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Indian Oil Corporation Limited (OP-1) and Mahanagar Gas Limited (OP-2) alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of sections 3 & 4 of the Act.

  2. As per the information, the Informant is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is engaged in the business of distribution of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). Earlier, it was engaged in the dispensation of petrol and petroleum & other allied products of the erstwhile IBP Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "IBP") which has now amalgamated with OP-1. The dealership agreement between the Informant and the erstwhile IBP Co. Ltd. was executed on 24/09/1984 whereby the Informant was to distribute and sell the products of the IBP Co. Ltd. at its site.

  3. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.C. Mehta verses Union of India, as well as certain other orders passed by the Bombay High Court, the OP-2 was charged with the function of ensuring adequate supply of CNG to customers in the state of Maharashtra. In order to discharge this function, the OP-2 executed agreements with dealers and oil companies for distribution of CNG. It is stated that OP-2 has the sole authority and right to distribute/procure CNG in the Greater Mumbai Region.

  4. It is submitted that due to increase in demand for CNG supply, the Informant approached OP-2 in order to get permit for distribution/dispensation of CNG from its dispensation unit. However, OP-2 informed the Informant that it had entered into an agreement with IBP on 12/09/2002 and since the Informant was a dealer of IBP/OP-1, it would not be possible for OP-2 to permit supply of CNG directly to the Informant at its outlet without no objection from IBP. On approaching IBP/OP-1, the Informant was advised to procure supply of CNG through it only. In such an eventuality, OP-1 shall have the right to charge commission from the total commission receivable by the Informant from OP-2.

  5. The Informant is alleged to have discontinued its business of sale of petrol and diesel from its unit and carried out necessary changes for providing infrastructure for installation of CNG plant which commenced from 13/03/2004. It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT