Case No. 80/2012. Case: H.L.S. Asia Limited, New Delhi Vs Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. Gurgaon and Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Limited, New Delhi. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 80/2012
JudgesAshok Chawla (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Dr. Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T), Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Section 4
Judgement DateFebruary 06, 2013
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

  1. This information has been filed by the informant against OP 1 and OP 2 with a prayer that the Competition Commission should order investigation into the alleged violations of section 4 of the Competition Act by OP 1 since OP-1 indulged into predatory pricing in respect of wireline logging and perforation services required for Oil & Natural Gas exploration. A prayer was also made that OP-2 should be directed to award part of the work to the informant on the basis of bid submitted by it and the Commission should also issue cease and desist order directing OP-1 not to indulge into anti competitive activities and impose penalty upon OP-1. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this Order are that informant and OP-1 and 9 other parties had submitted their bids in response to e-tender floated by OP-2. The financial bids were opened on 5th December, 2012. The allegation of informant is that OP-1 quoted unreasonably low rates for the standard services which were to be the basis for evaluation of tender while considering the financial bid of the parties by OP-2. OP-2 had issued a mega tender covering entire off-shore and on-shore areas of operation for a period of 3 years involving standard services, optional services and highly technical services. In order to grab almost the entire business of OP-2 in wireline logging and perforation services (of approx. 2,400 crores), OP-1 quoted prices of most of the standard services ridiculously low and unreasonably increased prices of those services which were highly technical and were monopoly of OP-1 as these were not available with other companies. It is submitted that the tender was only to be evaluated on the basis of standard services and thus by quoting unreasonably low prices, OP-1 succeeded in ousting the informant from the contract with OP-2. It is stated that the prices quoted by OP-1 were approx. 40% lower than the internal estimates of OP-2 and 50% lower than the previous running contract rates.

  2. After receipt of information, notices were served to the informant and opposite parties for preliminary conference so as to understand the relevant product market, geographic market and the bidding process. All the three parties were heard together.

  3. It is an undisputed fact OP-2 had issued an e-tender in respect of standard services (common services), hi-tech services and optional services. It is also an undisputed fact that evaluation of tender was to be done on the basis of rates of...

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