Case No. 88 of 2016. Case: Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Private Limited Vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech India Limited and Ors.. Competition Commision of India

Case Number:Case No. 88 of 2016
Party Name:Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Private Limited Vs Mahyco Monsanto Biotech India Limited and Ors.
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 - Section 19(1)(a), 26(1), 3, 3(4), 4
Judgement Date:March 14, 2017
Court:Competition Commision of India
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. The information in the present case has been filed by Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Private Limited (hereinafter, the "Informant") under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('Act') against Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited (hereinafter, the "OP-1/MMBL"), Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (hereinafter, the "OP-2/MHPL"), Monsanto Company, U.S.A. (hereinafter, the "OP-3/Monsanto"), Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited (hereinafter, the "OP-4/MAHYCO") and Monsanto Technology LLC (hereinafter, the "OP-5/MTL") alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

  2. The allegations in the present information have been made, inter alia, in connection with the OP Group, abusing the dominant position by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in the sub-license agreements through which Bt. technology is sub-licensed to the seed manufacturing companies in India; charging unfair trait value; limiting scientific development relating to Bt. cotton technology as well as Bt. cotton seeds and denial of market access and leveraging their dominant position in Bt. cotton technology market for expanding their presence in Bt. cotton seeds market. The Informant has further alleged that the OP Group has entered into exclusive supply agreement, refused to deal with Indian seed manufacturers and reserved the right to fix price of seeds in certain circumstances, which according to the Informant is in contravention of provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act.

  3. The Commission directed the Director General (DG) to cause an investigation into the matters vide its majority order dated 10th February 2016, passed under Section 26 (1) of the Act in Reference Case No. 2 of 2015 and Case No. 107 of 2015. Subsequently, taking into consideration the substantial similarity in the issues and allegations, the Commission, vide its order dated 18th February 2016, clubbed Case No. 03 of 2016, Case No. 10 of 2016 and Reference Case No. 01/2016 along with Reference Case No. 2 of 2015 and Case No. 107 of 2015. Further, vide its order dated 09th June, 2016, the Commission clubbed three other cases namely Case No. 37 of 2016, Case No. 38 of 2016 and Case No. 39 of 2016 with Reference Case No. 2 of 2015 and Case No. 107 of 2015. Subsequently, vide order dated 21st September, 2016, the Commission clubbed Case No. 36 of 2016 with the earlier cases. All these cases are presently pending before the DG for investigation.

  4. The Commission...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL