In Re: Chief Materials Manager, North Western Railway Vs. Moulded Fibreglass Products and Others

For Chief Materials Manager, North Western Railway : None For Moulded Fibreglass Products, Black Burn and Co. : Mr. Rahul Singh, Mr. Pranjal Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Alok Somani, Director of Black Burn Prateek and Mr. Tanveer and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Verma, Advocates

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 1

For Power Mould, Polyset Plastics Private Ltd., M/s Anju : Dr. Harsh Surana, Advocate Techno Industries, Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and Partner of Power Mould and M/s Anju Techno Industries, and Ms. Shanta Sohoni, employee at Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. For Calstar Steel Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director : Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director of of Calstar Steel Ltd. Calstar Steel Ltd., in-person For Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of : Mr. Rohan Arora, Ms. Shweta Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Rajeev Dhudani, Consultant/ Shroff Chopra and Mr. Kshitij Adviser at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Rajesh R., Sharma, Advocates Senior Manager (Operations) at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. For Polymer Products of India Ltd., Mr. Vishnu N.M. : Mr. Kartikey Nayyar, Advocate and Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partners of along with Mr. Venkata Polymer Products of India Ltd., and Mr. Harsha Subramanyam, Managing Gumballi, Manager (Admin) of Polymer Products of Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd. India Ltd., in-person For M/s Micro Engineers and Mr. Salimuddin, Managing : Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Partner of M/s Micro Engineers Advocate For Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon : Mr. Samar Bansal, Advocate India Ltd.), Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of Quadrant EPP along with Mr. Luv Kumar, Surlon India Ltd. and Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager Director of Quadrant EPP (Marketing) of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. Surlon India Ltd., in-person

For Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, : Mr. Ashwini Chawla, Advocate ex-Director of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd.

ORDER UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002 Facts: 1. The present matter was initiated by the Commission on receipt of a Reference under Section 19(1)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) from Chief Materials Manager, North Western Railways (‘Informant’), against Moulded Fibreglass Products (‘OP-1’) and Power Mould (‘OP-2’).

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 2

2. The Informant alleged that OP-1 and OP-2 had indulged in cartelisation in the Informant’s bidding process for the procurement of High Performance Polyamide (‘HPPA’) Bushes and Self Lubricating Polyester Resin (‘SLPR’) Bushes (which are alternatives to each other) used in Bogie Mounted Brake Cylinder Coaches in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Informant, inter alia, submitted that OP-1 and OP-2 had quoted identical prices to the last 2 decimal points in their bids, in response to the Informant’s Re-Tender No. 30.16.2151-A opened on 02.09.2016, despite them being located at different places (Kolkata and Daman). 3. Upon consideration of the reference in its ordinary meeting held on 19.07.2018, the Commission decided to call for certain documents/ clarification from the Informant which were filed by him on 17.08.2018. 4. Thereafter, the Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 11.09.2018 and decided to pass an appropriate order. 5. Subsequent thereto, the Commission passed an order dated 16.10.2018 under Section 26(1) of the Act forming an opinion that there exists a prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, and accordingly, directed the Director General (‘DG’) to cause an investigation into the matter and submit a report. The Commission made it clear that if during the course of investigation, the DG comes across anti-competitive conduct of any other entity/ person in addition to those mentioned in the information, the DG shall be at liberty to investigate the same as well. Further, the DG was directed to conduct a detailed investigation into the matter without restricting and confining itself to the duration mentioned in the information. The DG was also directed to investigate the role of the officials of the Opposite Parties, in terms of Section 48 of the Act, after giving them due opportunity of being heard. 6. During the pendency of investigation before the DG, applications under Section 46 of the Act read with Regulation 5 of the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (‘LPR’) were received in the Commission on behalf of (i) Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and its 5 individuals, (ii) OP-1 and its 5 individuals, (iii) Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. and its individuals, and (iv) Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 3

MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) and its 2 individuals. The same, vide separate orders, were forwarded by the Commission to the DG. Findings of the DG: 7. The DG, after conducting a comprehensive investigation in the matter, submitted the investigation report. The findings of the DG in its report, in brief, are as under: (a) The following nine (09) other parties are also found to be involved in the alleged cartelisation: i. Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-3’) ii. Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. (‘OP-4’) iii. M/s Anju Techno Industries (‘OP-5’) iv. Calstar Steel Limited (‘OP-6’) v. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (‘OP-7’) vi. Polymer Products of India Ltd. (‘OP-8’) vii. M/s Micro Engineers (‘OP-9’) viii. Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) (‘OP- 10’) ix. Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd (‘OP-11’) (b) After analysing the nature of activities performed by the contravening parties i.e. manufacture and supply of moulded plastics, HPPA/ SLPR Bushes, protective tubes and other multiple components, all the eleven (11) parties (OP-1 and OP-2 and the above additional 09 parties) were found to be entities indulging into economic activities and hence, ‘enterprise’ within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act. Further, it was found that the Indian Railways, vide its circular, has declared HPPA/ SLPR Bushes to be alternates to each other. As such, all the 11 parties were found to be engaged in identical/ similar trade of goods. Accordingly, the conduct of these 11 parties was can be analysed in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act. (c) During the investigation, the DG analysed various evidences in the form of price parallelism in various tenders across different railways zones, commonality of IP addresses and common login time and date of a bunch of parties, common directorship/ partnership of some groups of parties, and e-mail exchanges and WhatsApp communications between representatives of various parties. The DG

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 4 carved out a modus operandi which was being followed by the parties and observed that: a. there was a clear understanding between the parties with respect to determination of prices in regard to the tenders floated by Indian Railways for procurement of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes. Further, there were also discussions regarding revision in prices and e-mails where members can be seen pressuring other members to quote only the decided prices and not lower; b. the parties had an agreement and understanding wherein the intention was to inflate or increase the prices of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes in the tendering process. The parties also discouraged each other to quote lower rates in the bids and encouraged each other to quote higher prices; c. the parties could be seen asking other parties to withdraw their offers which showed that the parties, in agreement with each other, were controlling and limiting the supply of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes as these were the only approved vendors of the said product; d. the tenders were distributed amongst the parties on the basis different railway zones and accordingly, the parties were sharing the market by way of allocation of the tenders by geographical area of the market. In view of the above, the DG concluded that all the eleven (11) parties were indulging in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Act. (d) In terms of Section 48 of the Act, the DG identified certain individuals of the parties who had played an active role in contravention of the provisions of the Act by the respective entity and/ or was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the respective entity during the period of contravention, and accordingly, fixed liability upon 14 such individuals. Proceedings before the Commission: 8. The Commission considered the investigation report submitted by the DG in its ordinary meeting held on 15.04.2021 and decided to implead the additional 09 parties found guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Act by the DG, as Opposite

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 5

Parties 03 to 11 in the present matter (OP-1 to OP-11 hereinafter referred to as the ‘OPs’). The Commission also forwarded an electronic copy of public version of the investigation report to the Informant, giving it an opportunity to file its suggestions/ objections, if any thereto. As far as the OPs and their individuals found liable by the DG in terms of Section 48 of the Act were concerned, the Commission decided to form a confidentiality ring amongst them for the purposes of sharing confidential version of the DG Report/ DG Records with them, and accordingly, directed the OPs and their individuals concerned to furnish to the Commission, the names and undertakings of persons who would form part of the confidentiality ring on their behalf. 9. Upon receipt of such names and undertakings from 09 out of 11 OPs and their 12 individuals, the Commission, vide order dated 08.09.2021, created a confidentiality ring amongst the 09 OPs and their 12 individuals and forwarded to them, electronic copy of the confidential version of the investigation report. To remaining 02 OPs and their 02 individuals, non-confidential qua OPs version of the investigation report was forwarded. The parties were given an opportunity to file their suggestions/ objections, if any, to the investigation report of the DG and they were also directed to file their certain financial statements. The OPs were directed to furnish their audited Financial Statements including Balance Sheets and Profit & Loss Accounts for the relevant Financial Years (‘FYs’) i.e. 2015-16 to 2019-20 along with details of their revenue and profit generated in these FYs from the sale of HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes by way of Affidavits supported by certificates of Chartered Accountants, while the persons identified by the DG in terms of Section 48 of the Act were directed to file their income details including Income Tax Returns (‘ITRs’) for the FYs 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. 10. Thereafter, on 27.01.2022, the Commission heard the oral submissions addressed by the respective learned counsel(s) for the parties on the DG report and on the respective applications for lesser penalty filed by certain parties under Section 46 of the Act. The Commission decided to pass an appropriate order in the matter in due course. Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective written arguments.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 6

Submissions of the parties: 11. In their suggestions/ objections to the investigation report of DG written arguments, and during the oral hearing, the parties took diverse pleas which are summarised in the succeeding paras: 12. Informant 12.1 No submissions were filed on behalf of the Informant, and neither anyone appeared on behalf of the Informant. 13. Moulded Fibreglass Products and Mr. Alok Somani 13.1 OP-1 largely agrees with the observations and conclusions drawn in the investigation report. However, it may be noted that OP-1’s role in the cartel was limited only in its capacity of being a Part I supplier of SLPR Bushes. It did not participate in the cartel as Part II supplier of HPPA Bushes. Further, though the cartel was in operation since 2014 onwards, OP-1 came to know about the same only in 2016 when Mr. Alok Somani was approached by the other manufacturers to become a part of the cartel. In 2016 also, OP-1 became an unwilling member to the cartel only because it was incurring heavy losses in its SLPR Bushes business as the Indian Railways had decided to treat low performing HPPA bushes at par with expensive SLPR bushes.

However even on becoming a part of the cartel, OP- 1 did not play an active role in facilitating the cartel. Since beginning, it was Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-4 who co-ordinated the activities and was the ring leader of the cartel. Further, the tendering mechanism of Indian Railways of negotiating prices based on L1 quotes also lead to an indirect exchange of price related information. 13.2 There was no cartel between OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11. The DG’s theory of there being a cartel between OP-1 and OP-3 based on identical IP addresses from which bids were quoted, is untenable. OP-1 and OP-3 may have participated in the same tenders, but while one was quoting for HPPA Bushes, the other was quoting for SLPR Bushes. Further, the Indian Railways was also well aware of OP-1 and OP-3 being sister entities. For the sake of complete disclosure, it is submitted that on certain occasions, even OP-11 also filed the bids from OP-3’s office; however, this Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 7 was because OP-11 bought the major raw material ‘prepreg’ for SLPR Bushes, from OP-3 only. OP-11 could enter the business of SLPR Bushes only because of the help of OP-3 which provided to it the necessary raw material and technology to develop SLPR Bushes.

However, it continued to face various technical difficulties for which it regularly consulted OP-1 and OP-3. Hence, it cannot be said that OP-11 provided cover bids for OP-1 and OP-3. 13.3 The DG has not investigated cartel conduct prior to 2016 despite there being evidence on record to show that the cartel was in operation from at least 2014. 13.4 The DG’s conclusion regarding there being geographical allocation of market amongst the OPs, is factually and legally, untenable. There is no evidence on record regarding territorial/ geographical/ zonal allocation of tenders amongst the OPs. 13.5 OP-1 is a Micro Small and Medium Enterprise (‘MSME’) and has undergone severe economic hardship on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, monetary penalty ought not to be imposed on OP-1. 13.6 OP-1 has fulfilled all conditions mentioned in the LPR for grant of lesser penalty to it. It has provided full, true and vital disclosures and has extended full, continuous and expeditious co-operation. In fact, the disclosures made by OP-1 and OP-3 led to other participants also file for lesser penalty. The DG has also extensively relied upon the evidence provided by OP-1 to incriminate various OPs.

Even before the filing of a lesser penalty application, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1 had voluntarily made vital disclosures to the DG and provided direct evidence of cartel which included e-mails exchanged between the OPs in furtherance of the cartel. Hence, OP-1 ought to be granted the maximum benefit of reduction in penalty, if any, imposed upon it. 13.7 OP-1’s participation in the cartel did not lead to any appreciable adverse effect on competition (‘AAEC’) within India. In terms of the factors stated under Section 19(3) of the Act, OP-1’s conduct neither created any entry barriers for new entrants in the market, nor drove existing competitors out of the market, nor led to foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market. Rather, OP-1 developed a technically superior product in the form of SLPR Bushes along with Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 8 competing vigorously against incumbent HPPA Bushes players who had formed a cartel which led to significant benefit to the consumer (Indian Railways). It helped OP-11 enter SLPR Bushes market leading to improvement in the production and distribution of SLPR Bushes.

By developing SLPR Bushes, OP-1 solved long-standing technical problem faced by the Indian Railways thereby leading to promotion of technical and scientific development. 14. Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Alok Somani 14.1 OP-3 largely agrees with the observations and conclusions drawn in the investigation report. However, though the cartel was in operation since 2014 onwards, OP-3 came to know about the same only in 2016 when Mr. Alok Somani was approached by the other manufacturers to become a part of the cartel. Further, OP-3 started participating in the cartel only from January 2018 onwards, that too because it was incurring heavy losses in its SLPR Bushes business as the Indian Railways had decided to treat low performing HPPA bushes at par with expensive SLPR bushes. It can be seen from the rates quoted by OP-3 in 2016 and 2017 tenders that such rates were quite low and competitive. Anyhow, even on becoming a part of the cartel in January 2018, OP-3 did not play an active role in facilitating the cartel. Since beginning, it was Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-4 who co-ordinated the activities and was the ring leader of the cartel.

14.2 In many of the excel sheets containing data of allotment of tenders to various OPs which are attached to the e-mails of Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-4 sent 2016 onwards, OP-3 has been wrongly mentioned in place of OP-1. It was OP-1 and not OP-3 which had joined the cartel in 2016. Further, the tendering mechanism of Indian Railways of negotiating prices based on L1 quotes also lead to an indirect exchange of price related information. 14.3 There was no cartel between OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11. The DG’s theory of there being a cartel between OP-1 and OP-3 based on identical IP addresses from which bids were quoted, is untenable. OP-1 and OP-3 may have participated in the same tenders, but while one was quoting for HPPA Bushes, the other was quoting for SLPR Bushes. Further, the Indian Railways was also well aware of OP-1 and OP-3 being sister entities. For the sake of complete disclosure, it is submitted that on Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 9 certain occasions, even OP-11 also filed the bids from OP-3’s office; however, this was because OP-11 brought the major raw material ‘prepreg’ for SLPR Bushes, from OP-3 only.

OP-11 could enter the business of SLPR Bushes only because of the help of OP-3 which provided to it the necessary raw material and technology to develop SLPR Bushes. However, it continued to face various technical difficulties for which it regularly consulted OP-1 and OP-3. Hence, it cannot be said that OP-11 provided cover bids for OP-1 and OP-3. 14.4 The DG has not investigated cartel conduct prior to 2016 despite there being evidence on record to show that the cartel was in operation from at least 2014. 14.5 The DG’s conclusion regarding there being geographical allocation of market amongst the OPs is factually and legally, untenable. There is no evidence on record to regarding territorial/ geographical/ zonal allocation of tenders amongst the OPs. 14.6 OP-3 is an MSME and has undergone severe economic hardship on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, monetary penalty ought not to be imposed on OP-3. 14.7 OP-3 has fulfilled all conditions mentioned in the LPR for grant of lesser penalty to it. It has provided full, true and vital disclosures and has extended full, continuous and expeditious co-operation.

In fact, the disclosures made by OP-1 and OP-3 led to other participants also file for lesser penalty. The DG has also extensively relied upon the evidence provided by OP-3 to incriminate various OPs. Even before the filing of a lesser penalty application, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-3 had voluntarily made vital disclosures to the DG and provided direct evidence of cartel which included e-mails exchanged between the OPs in furtherance of the cartel. Hence, OP-3 ought to be granted the maximum benefit of reduction in penalty, if any, imposed upon it. 14.8 OP-3’s participation in the cartel did not lead to any AAEC within India. In terms of the factors stated under Section 19(3) of the Act, OP-3’s conduct neither created any entry barriers for new entrants in the market, nor drove existing competitors out of the market, nor led to foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market. Rather, OP-3 developed a technically superior product in the form of SLPR Bushes along with competing vigorously against incumbent HPPA Bushes

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 10 players who had formed a cartel which led to significant benefit to the consumer (Indian Railways). It helped OP-1 and OP-11 enter SLPR Bushes market leading to improvement in the production and distribution of SLPR Bushes. By developing SLPR Bushes, OP-3 solved long-standing technical problem faced by the Indian Railways thereby leading to promotion of technical and scientific development. 15. Power Mould, M/s Anju Techno Industries, Polyset Plastics Private Ltd., Mr. Bhupesh Bafna and Ms. Shanta Sohoni 15.1 The informal market understanding amongst the vendors with regard to the supply of HPPA Bushes to the Railways existed to safeguard and recover the investments in R&D put forth by the vendors and to deliver good quality product at reasonable price. The answering OPs were not fully aware of the exact and specific competition law in the country and the OPs will certainly be extra careful and cautious of all rules, regulations and existing compliances in all their future dealings. The informal arrangement between the OPs existed in ignorance of existing laws. Their intention or actions were not to prevent the entry of any new entity in the tender process i.e. anti-competitive in nature. The field and market was always open for all and the answering OPs’ dealings have always been fair to all. 15.2 In the digital era, procurement system and subsequent tendering process of the Indian Railways is very robust and in no way can be influenced by the vendors. It is not the case that due to any action on part of the answering OPs, the price of the product increased or jacked-up. 15.3 The answering OPs have never been party to any earlier inquiry or investigation. The revenue earned by them from the sale of HPPA Bushes is also very less considering the overall business. Further, in light of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns, the businesses of the answering OPs have suffered a lot. Hence, no penalty ought to be imposed upon the answering OPs. 16. Calstar Steel Ltd. and Mr. Vikas Agarwal 16.1 OP-6 has not been a member of the association amongst the OPs for a major portion of the period in question. It was not an active member and always had

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 11 reservations in forming or participating in this association. It was only a part of the association for a brief period from 05.12.2016 to 22.06.2017 and further from 01.03.2019 to 31.03.2020. It was a reluctant participant as it did not approve of this understanding/ association and joined for this brief period only at the insistence of other participants. From the documents on record, it is very clear that OP-6 had not quoted in any tender during the period 22.06.2017 to 01.03.2019 as per the directions of the association or participated in any manner with the association. The DG has missed out that OP-6 was not a regular participant and was a part of the association only for a brief period. As a result of not being a regular member, OP-6 was not able to get good rates and operated at a negligible profit. 17. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Vishal Baid, Mr. Rajeev Dhudani and Mr. Rajesh R. 17.1 OP-7 is a lesser penalty applicant before the Commission. Through its lesser penalty application, OP-7 has provided full, true and vital disclosures regarding the alleged cartel.

OP-7 has extensively explained the cartel conduct by providing details of (i) the market structure in which the cartel arrangement took place; (ii) the members and modus operandi of the cartel, (iii) role of key persons involved in the cartel, (iv) e-mail correspondences regarding preparation and submission of bids in a concerted manner and indicating sharing of commercially sensitive and confidential price information between the OPs; and (v) chronology of the related events in which bid-rigging took place. Further, OP-7 also provided allocation tables, which contain details of all tenders for which the OPs had colluded with each other to fix prices and allocate quantity amongst each other. The allocation tables contained details of approximately 417 tenders from February 2016 till July 2020. Hence, OP-7 has made immense value addition by way of its submissions and extensively assisted the DG in arriving at its conclusions. The DG has heavily relied on the information and evidence submitted by OP-7. This value addition by OP-7 demonstrates the exact nature of collusion, which would have been difficult to ascertain without having received the extensive cooperation from OP-7.

OP-7 also submitted evidence highlighting involvement of additional member(s) in the cartel conduct who have not been identified by the DG as relevant individual(s) under Section 48 of the Act. In light of this, and considering the fact that OP-7 has

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 12 fulfilled all conditions for grant of lesser penalty as mentioned under the LPR, OP- 7 and its individuals should not be levied any penalty, and if a penalty is to be levied, OP-7 and its individuals ought to be granted the maximum applicable reduction in penalty under the LPR. 17.2 The DG has erred in observing that the OPs indulged in geographical allocation of the market. The Indian Railways distributes its operations into different zones across the country geographically and each railway zone procures its products separately by floating separate tenders. The DG rightly mentions that the OPs had allocated the market percentage to each vendor. However, this market percentage is not allocated on the basis of any geographic segmentation as the OPs supply their products to railways pan-India, i.e. across various railway zones. 17.3 Penalty, if any, ought to be imposed only on relevant turnover/ profit of OP-7, i.e. the turnover/ profit derived from sale of HPPA bushes in the relevant time period/ duration (i.e. 2016 to 2020) 17.4 Following mitigating factors ought to be considered in case the Commission deems it necessary to impose penalty: (i) OP-7 continuously co-operated with the Commission and the DG during the investigation; (ii) OP-7 earned insignificant profits from the cartel arrangement; (iii) OP-7 was forced to join hands with other vendors in order to secure their business because the market is driven and solely controlled by Indian Railways and vendors have to adhere to the framework and tender conditions stipulated by Indian Railways; (iv) OP-7 is a MSME unit with limited resources, and has suffered significant repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic and accordingly, imposition of penalty will put an additional significant financial burden on OP-7; and (v) OP-7 played a limited role in the cartel arrangement as Ms. Shanta Sohoni was responsible for co-ordinating amongst the members of the cartel. 17.5 OP-7 had also disclosed about existence of another cartel arrangement. The Competition Law Review Committee, in its report dated 26.07.2019, has acknowledged the challenges faced by the Commission in cartel detection and enforcement and, in view of this, recommended that where an applicant makes full, true and vital disclosure with respect to another cartel (Leniency Plus), such

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 13 applicant may be granted lesser penalty specified in the LPR. In view of this, the Commission, while deciding the quantum of penalty reduction in the present matter, may also take into account the additional disclosure of a contravention of Section 3 of the Act made by OP-7 in another matter. Considering the legislative desire for Leniency Plus, in addition to the comprehensive co-operation provided by OP-7 in this matter, the Commission may, considering the fact that OP-7 has also made full, true and vital disclosures with respect to another anti-competitive agreement, grant OP-7 and its individuals, 100% immunity from penalty in the present matter. 18. Polymer Products of India Ltd., Mr. Vishnu N.M., Mr. Venkata Subramanyam and Mr. Harsha Gumballi 18.1 OP-8 was not named as an OP in the initial reference received from the Informant. OP-8 and its individuals were rather impleaded by the DG later as an after-thought without any merit, solely on the basis of the fact that OP-8 had always participated in the tender process issued by the Indian Railways.

However, the DG, in the investigation report, has failed to establish any relation between OP-8 and the other OPs. 18.2 The DG has failed to establish prior agreement of ‘meeting of minds’ between the OPs. The communications referred to between OP-8 and its individuals with other OPs rather express difference of opinions and disagreements. OP-8 has always followed fair trade practices and accordingly, avoids any professional communication with any competitor with respect to any tender whatsoever, for which OP-8 may or may not bid. 18.3 OP-8 was only a Part II supplier of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes to the Indian Railways. Part II suppliers are not considered for supply of more than 20% of the tendered quantity, that too only if the rate quoted by them is less than Part I source suppliers’ rate. Since OP-8 was offered 10% of the net procurable quantity in the Impugned Tender, it illustrates that OP-8 had quoted quite competitive rates to the Indian Railways based on various factors such as cost of raw material, labour cost, freight cost, etc. Being a part II source supplier, OP-8 is in no position to dictate the prices of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, which are decided on the basis of Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 14 prices of Part I source suppliers.

Part II source suppliers are left at complete mercy of Part I source suppliers and they are forced to follow the directions set by Part I source suppliers to survive in the market and procure business. Hence, OP-8, having no control over the market of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes, has not entered into any cartel arrangement and/ or manipulated the prices of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes. 18.4 OP-8 has not indulged in modification of any prices arising out of the cartel. 18.5 OP-8 had not quoted in any of the tenders through a common IP address with any other OP. 18.6 OP-8 had provided all relevant information, documents and evidence during the entire proceedings and has co-operated genuinely, fully, continuously and expeditiously in the present matter. It has not concealed, destroyed, manipulated or removed any relevant and necessary documents of the present case. 18.7 COVID-19 pandemic has had catastrophic impact on the entire world, especially small-scale industry like OP-8 which have been facing the brunt of uncertainty looming around the world economic structure since the onset of COVID-19. Hence, Commission may consider waiving of levy of any penalty upon OP-8 and its individuals.

19. M/s Micro Engineers and Mr. Salimuddin 19.1 There is no evidence in the DG Report which may even remotely connect OP-9 or Mr. Salimuddin to the alleged cartel. OP-9 and Mr. Salimuddin have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of mere suspicion and conjectures by the DG, without any application of mind to the facts, statements, e-mails, WhatsApp communications and documents on record. 19.2 OP-9 had received approval for participation in Tenders of Railways as Part-II Vendor for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes on 09.09.2015 from RDSO. It had participated only in 2 small tenders for HPPA bushes/ SLPR bushes concerning Purchase Orders (‘PO’) dated 09.03.2016 and 15.03.2016. However, as it incurred losses in the two (2), contemplating further losses, it stopped manufacturing HPPA bushes/ SLPR bushes and participating in railway tenders from the 2nd half of 2016. RDSO, on its own as per its rules, and without any application from OP-9,

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 15 extended the validity of approval granted to OP-9 till 08.09.2020 vide letter dated 17.07.2017. However, OP-9 did not participate in any railway tender for HPPA bushes/ SLPR bushes between 2nd half of 2016 and 2020 or beyond. 19.3 The DG has simply implicated OP-9 and Mr. Salimuddin on the basis of certain e-mails marked to them. However, OP-9 could not have prevented any other party to send any such e-mail to OP-9. None of such e-mails were ever replied to by or on behalf of OP-9. None of the e-mails were ever even acted upon by OP-9. OP-9 did not receive any P.O. from Railways post 15.03.2016 which itself shows that none of such e-mails marked to OP-9 were ever relevant to it. 20. Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.), Mr. Luv Kumar and Mr. R.K. Singh 20.1 OP-10 and its individuals have filed lesser penalty application before the Commission admitting to their limited participation in the cartel arrangement and as such, they have no objections to the findings contained in the investigation report. 20.2 OP-10 and its individuals, as lesser penalty applicant, have provided full, true and vital disclosures to assist the investigation and they have extended full co-operation as well.

They have fulfilled all conditions set out in Section 46 of the Act and the provisions of the LPR. The admissions of individuals of OP-10 have been used and relied upon by the DG in its investigation report. As part of their lesser penalty application, OP-10 and its individuals have provided comprehensive details of the relevant market, vendors, products concerned, price/ rates quoted, formation and mode of operation of cartel etc. with supporting documents and meticulously compiled data represented in the form of tables, charts/ graphs in order to provide maximum aid to the investigation. The DG has also relied upon such information and data supplied by OP-10 and its individuals. As such, OP-10 and its individuals ought to be granted full benefit of lesser penalty and no penalty ought to be imposed upon them. 20.3 OP-10 is an MSME and a small market player in the relevant market. Its market share was 3.97% in 2016-17, 8.8% in 2017-18, 6.83% in 2018-19, 3.18% in 2019- 20 and 2.15% in 2020-21 which differs from and is far less beneficial than the Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 16 share allocated to it in the cartel arrangement.

The actual amounts received by OP- 10 were miniscule and not as per the cartel arrangement. OP-10 mostly had a passive role in the cartel activity which is clear from the investigation report which clearly shows that very limited correspondences were exchanged by the individuals of OP-10 in comparison to other parties. 20.4 OP-10 and its individuals have ceased to participate in the cartel and have also put appropriate structures in place to effectively implement Competition Law Compliance policies in future. 20.5 The COVID-19 pandemic has had disastrous impact on small scale businesses like OP-10. Hence, any penalty decided to be imposed upon OP-10 ought to be waived off. This has also been the recent trend of the Commission in various other matters. 21. Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Shirish Tapuriah 21.1 No submissions were filed on behalf of OP-11, and neither anyone appeared on behalf of OP-11. Analysis: 22. The Commission has perused the applications seeking lesser penalty filed by OP-3, OP- 1, OP-7 and OP-10 under Section 46 of the Act, the investigation report submitted by the DG and the evidences collected by the DG, the suggestions/ objections to the DG Report and written arguments filed by the parties, and also heard the oral arguments made by the respective learned counsel representing the parties in the matter.

23. The Commission notes that in the present matter, allegations relate to cartelisation in the Informant’s bidding process with respect to the Impugned Tender issued by the Indian Railways, for HPPA Brake Bushes and/ or SLPR Brake Bushes. 24. From the DG Report, it is noted that Brake Bushes are spherical linings used in bush holders of brake hanger of railway coaches for reducing friction while connecting the hanger to the Chassis and Brake Shoe. The DG has noted that passenger coaches earlier made by the Indian Railways had braking system which used Bronze Bushes. Thereafter, Brake Bushes made out of acetal, nylon and lastly Phenolic Bushes were used. However, in 2004-05, the Indian Railways initiated field trials with SLPR Brake

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 17

Bushes and since the same gave promising results, Indian Railways gave approval to SLPR Bushes and divided Brake Bushes Kit into two parts – Brake Bushes for critical locations and Brake Bushes for non-critical locations. SLPR Bushes were approved for critical locations and Phenolic Bushes continued to be used for non-critical locations. Ultimately, due to poor performance of Phenolic Bushes, SLPR Bushes were approved for all locations despite their high cost. Simultaneously, trials were also approved for non-critical locations in HPPA Bushes. Thereafter, the Indian Railways passed an order to procure SLPR Bushes and HPPA Bushes as alternates to each other depending on the price that the lowest bidder was offering. 25. From the evidence on record, it is noted that SLPR Bushes are manufactured by three OPs i.e. OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11 while HPPA Bushes are manufactured by 10 OPs i.e. all the OPs except OP-11. Thus, evidently, all the OPs are engaged in the manufacture and supply of HPPA Bushes and/ or SLPR Bushes to the Indian Railways, though OP-9 which started the manufacture of HPPA bushes in 2012-13 did not continue in such line of activity for too long. Hence, since all the OPs have been engaged in identical or similar trade of goods, their alleged cartel conduct shall be analysed by the Commission in terms of Section 3(3) of the Act. 26. The Indian Railways, in order to ensure reliability, availability and safe working of Railway assets, follows the practice of maintaining lists of approved vendors for certain specific items. It is noted from the DG Report that SLPR Bushes and HPPA Bushes were two of such items. Research Designs and Standards Organization (‘RDSO’) is the nodal agency of the Indian Railways for vendor approval. It maintains two lists – of Part I vendors and of Part II vendors. RDSO approved vendors included in Part I are eligible for regular supply to the Indian Railways and for getting an order for full quantity of tenders floated by the Indian Railways, whereas vendors approved and included in Part II are eligible for developmental order and for getting an order for part quantity (up to 25% only). For SLPR Bushes and HPPA Bushes, the RDSO approved vendors along with their timelines are as follows:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 18

Date of approval as Date of approval as Manufacturer Part II source Part I source 21.07.2009 (SLPR) 05.04.2013 (SLPR) OP-3 14.09.2016 (HPPA) 19.12.2017 (HPPA) 01.09.2009 (SLPR) 12.06.2015 (SLPR) OP-1 29.09.2017 (HPPA) - OP-11 04.09.2012 (SLPR) - OP-4 07.09.2009 (HPPA) 20.11.2013 (HPPA) OP-5 19.01.2010 (HPPA) 12.06.2017 (HPPA OP-2 19.01.2010 (HPPA) 01.05.2015 (HPPA) OP-8 22.01.2016 (HPPA) 23.08.2019 (HPPA) OP-10 16.07.2014 (HPPA) 24.05.2017 (HPPA) OP-7 06.03.2012 (HPPA) 27.05.2014 (HPPA) OP-6 01.09.2016 (HPPA) 01.03.2019 (HPPA) OP-9 01.01.2016 (HPPA) - 27. In the above background, the Commission shall analyse as to whether there was any cartelisation in the Informant’s bidding process between the OPs, with respect to the Impugned Tender and/ or other tenders issued for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes. 28. From the DG Report, it is first of all noted that the bids for SLPR Bushes/ HPPA Bushes quoted by the two original OPs i.e. OP-1 and OP-2, in several tenders across different Railway Zones including North Western Railway, Central Railway and South Western Railway, were as under: S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price Product No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹) North 1. OP-1 SLPR 5483.75 30162151- 1. Western 02.09.2016 A 2. OP-2 HPPA 5483.75 Railways 1. OP-1 SLPR 2802.53 Central 2. 11162236 08.07.2016 Railways 2. OP-2 HPPA 2802.53 South 1. OP-1 SLPR 6787.07 3. 30161250 Western 14.07.2016 2. OP-2 HPPA 6787.07 Railways 1. OP-1 SLPR 2774.1 Central 4. 38172236 10.07.2017 Railways 2. OP-2 HPPA 2774.1

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 19

From the above, it is observed that though OP-1 and OP-2 were based out of different geographical locations i.e. Kolkata and Daman respectively, the prices quoted by them to the Railways, that too for different substitutable products (i.e. HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes) requiring different raw materials, were exactly the same. 29. Hence, though in the reference, price parallelism by OP-1 and OP-2 was alleged, however, the DG, during investigation, went into a detailed analysis of the bids quoted by the various bidders in various Railway tenders issued by various Railways Zones for SLPR Bushes/ HPPA Bushes. 30. From an analysis of the tender quotations made by the various bidders for SLPR Bushes/ HPPA Bushes in different Railways Zones, the following instances of price parallelism were also found: S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹) 1. S.K. Plasto 3990 2. OP-8 4731.3 3. OP-3 4410 4. OP-1 5696.25 East 5. OP-7 5428.5 1. 04171074 Central 07.11.2017 6. OP-2 5755.05 Railways 7. OP-5 5806.5 8. OP-4 5755.05 9. OP-11 5985 10. OP-6 5475.75 1. OP-3 4052.43 2. OP-1 5370.23 3. OP-7 5509.85 North 4. OP-2 5509.85 2. 3016001 Frontier 22.08.2016 5. OP-5 5398.05 Railways 6. OP-4 5843.12 7. Puran 6065 8. OP-10 5238.89

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 20

S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹) 1. OP-3 3106.65 2. OP-1 4674.6 3. OP-2 4359.13 4. OP-5 4307.31 West 3. 30161156 Central 25.10.2016 5. OP-4 4729.23 Railways 6. OP-7 4359.13 7. OP-6 3439 8. OP-10 4160.39 9. OP-8 4249.54 1. OP-3 1200.11 2. OP-1 1947.75 3. OP-2 1811.96 West 4. OP-5 1793.04 30161157- 4. Central 28.10.2016 A 5. OP-4 1975.29 Railways 6. OP-7 1811.96 7. OP-6 1769.5 8. OP-10 1811.96 1. OP-3 3578.4 2. OP-1 4509.75 West 3. OP-2 4507.65 5. 30161155 Central 21.07.2017 4. OP-5 4551.75 Railways 5. OP-4 4637.85 6. OP-10 4637.85 1. OP-3 2007.6 2. OP-1 1806 3. OP-2 2205 West 6. 30181157 Central 26.07.2018 4. OP-5 2107.35 Railways 5. OP-4 2289 6. OP-10 2110.5 7. OP-6 1575

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 21

S. Tender Tender Opening Participating Price No. No. floated by date Company/ Firm Quoted (₹) 8. OP-8 1774.5 9. OP-11 2415 10. OP-7 2110.5 From the above data, it is clearly depicted that the other OPs, apart from OP-1 and OP- 2, were also quoting prices which were identical to one or the other OPs in various Railway tenders issued by different Railways Zones. In fact, the DG has pointed out that in certain instances, OPs viz. OP-4, OP-7, OP-10 and OP-5, who were based out of different geographical locations at Mumbai, Jaipur, Ghaziabad and Vapi (Gujarat) respectively, had quoted identical prices for the same products though separated by inter-state borders. 31. In addition, it has also been pointed out in the DG Report that some OPs, based in the same city and state, manufacturing the same product, had also at times quoted substantially different prices in the same tender, for which there seems to be no justification. Tender No. 61160449 floated by Northern Railway and opened on 23.12.2016 S. No. Company/ Firm Product Price (₹) 1. OP-1 SLPR 4,090 2. OP-11 SLPR 4,750 3. OP-3 SLPR 8,000 Tender No. 3018250 floated by Southern Railway and opened on 17.05.2018 S. No. Company/ Firm Product Price (₹) 1. OP-1 SLPR 7,075 3. OP-3 SLPR 5,052 32. Besides, the DG has also gathered information about the OPs from the RDSO, from which it is noted that there were two groups (Group I and II) which were operated by common directors/ partners: Group I S. No. Company/ Firm Director/ Partner i. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna 1. OP-4 ii. Ms. Anju Bafna i. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna 2. OP-5 ii. Ms. Shailesh Bafna 3. OP-2 i. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 22

Group II S. No. Company/ Firm Director/ Partner i. Mr. Alok Somani 1. OP-3 ii. Mr. Parikshit Somani i. Ms. Manjushree Somani ii. Ms. Tanushree Somani 2. OP-1 (Ms. Manjushree Somani has authorised her husband Mr. Alok Somani to take business decisions) From the above, it is observed that three OPs i.e. OP-4, OP-5 and OP-2, were controlled by Mr. Bhupesh Bafna as Partner/ Director while two other OPs viz. OP-3 and OP-1, were controlled by Mr. Alok Somani as Partner/ authorised representative. The DG has found that these sets of entities were also declared as sister companies before the RDSO and yet they were participating in the same tenders for the same products as competitors. 33. In regard to these sets of sister entities, the Commission also notes from the details of IP addresses from which bids were filed by them in various railway tenders that in at least the following 34 tenders for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, bids were submitted by them from a common IP address: S. No. Tender No. Tender floated by Opening date Common IP addresses i. OP-2 and OP-4 1. 30162151-A North Western Railways 02.09.2016 ii. OP-1 and OP-3 2. 30181250 South Western Railways 17.05.2018 OP-1 and OP-3 3. 51191329 Northern Railways 14.05.2019 OP-1 and OP-3 4. 04184022 East Central Zone 18.07.2018 OP-1 and OP-3 5. 30182151-C North Western Zone 10.04.2018 OP-1, OP-3 and OP-11 6. 30182151-D North Western Zone 04.09.2018 OP-1 and OP-3 7. 30182151-E North Western Zone 19.04.2018 OP-1 and OP-3 8. 57160025 Southern Railways 17.08.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 9. 51191329 Northern Railways 14.05.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 10. 0191536 South Central Railways 19.03.2019 OP-2 and OP-5 11. 30191534 South Central Railways 20.03.2019 OP-2 and OP-5 12. 301160861 RCF Railways 27.03.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 13. 2165809B South Western Railways 31.03.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 23

S. No. Tender No. Tender floated by Opening date Common IP addresses 14. 70160069 Southern Railways 23.03.2017 OP-2 and OP-5 15. 07181538 Northern Railways 22.03.2019 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 16. 2165809A South Western Railways 20.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 17. 2301160836 RCF 16.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 18. 3165426 North Western Railways 20.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 19. 30171520 South Central Railways 04.04.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 20. L2165808 South Western Railways 09.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 21. L2165809 South Western Railways 09.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 22. 30163136 South Eastern Railways 23.03.2017 OP-2 and OP-5 23. 30171534 South Central Railways 04.04.2017 OP-2 and OP-5 24. 2301160806 RCF 06.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 301160616- 25. RCF 03.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 A 26. 30171156 West Central Railways 28.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 27. 30171157 West Central Railways 28.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 28. 2150277A North Eastern Railways 15.03.2017 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 29. 74160058 Southern Railways 04.11.2016 OP-2 and OP-5 30. 03162030-A South East Central Railways 24.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 31. 03160109 South Western Railways 20.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 32. 30161157-A West Central Railways 28.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 33. 30161156 West Central Railways 25.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 34. 30163627 South Central Railways 18.10.2016 OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 34. Further, in respect of sister concerns OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5, from the login details including user ID, user name, IP address, login date and time, logout date and time and caller ID details procured by the DG from the service provider, the Commission notes that all bids in respect of these three entities were filed from a common address in Mumbai by a common user, even though the entities displayed their registered offices in different states:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 24

S Login Date Logout Date ID User IP Address Caller ID No. & time & time 3/21/2017 3/21/2017 1 9958609 jethalal 45.117.250.242 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 12:55:39 PM 7:41:33 PM 04-01-2017 04-01-2017 2 10025230 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 14:32 22:32 04-01-2017 04-01-2017 3 10022859 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 13:22 14:31 3/27/2017 3/28/2017 4 9995854 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 5:11:19 PM 1:11:19 AM 3/27/2017 3/27/2017 5 9993849 jethalal 180:148:62:71 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 10:12:57 AM 5:11:08 PM 3/18/2017 3/18/2017 6 9942386 jethalal 182.237.163.163 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 12:53:45 PM 8:53:45 PM 3/20/2017 3/20/2017 7 9952993 jethalal 182.237.163.163 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 12:55:08 PM 8:55:08 PM 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 8 9227877 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3 3:52:59 PM 11:53:01 PM 11/19/2016 11/19/2016 9 9238325 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3 3:56:32 PM 11:56:33 PM 11/19/2016 11/19/2016 10 9236108 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3 7:55:56 AM 3:55:58 PM 11/30/2016 11/30/2016 11 9292477 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3 9:59:13 AM 5:59:15 PM 12-01-2016 12-01-2016 12 9297471 jethalal 58.146.103.255 00:22:6B:3D:E9:A3 10:01 18:01 12/22/2016 12/22/2016 13 9426534 jethalal 58.146.103.255 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 6:44:55 AM 2:44:55 PM 08-03-2017 08-03-2017 14 10721206 jethalal 58.146.103.247 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 08:15 10:41 08-02-2017 08-03-2017 15 10719394 jethalal 58.146.103.247 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 16:21 00:15 08-03-2017 08-03-2017 16 10721291 jethalal 58.146.103.247 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 10:43 11:11 3/14/2017 3/14/2017 17 9911803 jethalal 182.237.160.197 90:6C:AC:3A:49:A1 11:24:22 AM 7:24:23 PM 11-03-2016 11-03-2016 18 9152803 jethalal 202.177.252.40 0C:D2:B5:4F:D0:79 12:02 20:02 10/27/2016 10/27/2016 19 9120214 jethalal 202.177.252.40 0C:D2:B5:4F:D0:79 1:38:22 PM 9:38:22 PM 10/19/2016 10/19/2016 20 9072945 jethalal 202.177.252.40 0C:D2:B5:4F:D0:79 12:52:19 PM 8:52:19 PM

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 25

35. As far as the other OPs are concerned, while analysing different tenders across India, it is observed that in the following tenders for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, few OPs had submitted bids in close proximity to each other in terms of timing: Tender No. 4107160179 opened from 06.04.2016 to 18.05.2016 S. Company/ Bid filed date Revised Price quoted (₹) No. Firm and time 13.05.2016 16:22 18.05.2016 Rs. 82,90,000 1. OP-1 Revised 10:52 74,61,000 (Revised) 2. OP-7 18.05.2016 10:06 - 79,06,057 3. OP-10 18.05.2016 10:10 - 76,95,126 4. OP-3 18.05.2016 10:38 - 71,29,400 17.05.2016 10:55 18.05.2016 78,49,022 5. OP-2 Revised 10:06 76,72,975 (Revised) In the above tender, the parties had either filed their bids on 18.05.2016 or revised their prices on 18.05.2016. Further, all the parties had filed their bids between 10:06 to 10:55 a.m. Tender No. 04170921 of Southern Railways opened on 17.07.2017 S. No. Company/ Firm Bid filed date and time Price quoted (₹) 1. OP-1 15.07.2017 15:12 6,718.95 2. OP-5 15.07.2017 07:06 7,122.15 3. OP-10 15.07.2017 17:40 7,265.55 4. OP-3 15.07.2017 16:37 5,598.60 5. OP-2 15.07.2017 16:43 6,714.23 6. OP-4 15.07.2017 17:32 7,255.50 In the above tender also, all bids were filed on 15.07.2017 even though the last date for filing of tender was 17.07.2017. 36. In the view of the Commission, such close proximity of date and timings in submission of bids by the OPs cannot be a mere co-incidence. Hence, from the above evidences, there appears to be some sort of collusion not only between OP-1 and OP-2, but also amongst 06 other OPs as well, with respect to the tenders quoted issued by the Indian Railways for the procurement of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes. 37. In order to understand the exact nature of such collusion, the Commission proceeds to analyse the various e-mail communications/ WhatsApp communications exchanged between the following key representatives of the OPs, with regard to the various

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 26 tenders issued by the Indian Railways for the procurement of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes: Mr. Alok Somani 1. O P-1 Mr. Amit Somani Mr. Alok Somani 2. O P-3 Mr. Amit Somani Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur 3. O P-2 Mr. Bhupesh Bafna 4. O P-4 Mr. Bhupesh Bafna Mr. Bhupesh Bafna 5. O P-5 Ms. Shanta Sohoni Mr. Vikas Agarwal 6. O P-6 Mr. Ram Chandra Mr. Vishal Baid 7. O P-7 Mr. Rajeev Dudhani Mr. Rajesh Nair Mr. Vishnu NM 8. O P-8 Mr. Harsha Gumballi Mr. A Venkata Subramanyam 9. O P-9 Mr. Salimuddin Mr. Luv Kumar 10. O P-10 Mr. R.K Singh 11. O P-11 Mr. Shirish Tapuriah 38. First of all, communications exchanged between the OPs with respect to the Impugned Tender shall be analysed. It is noted that Tender No. 30.16.2151 was floated by North Western Railway on 17.05.2016 calling RDSO approved sources for procurement of 4108 sets of HPPA/ SLPR bushes. Prices quoted therein were as follows: Bidding by RDSO approved Part I sources Vendor Item Bid Price (₹) OP-1 SLPR 4,550 OP-2 HPPA 4,563.75 Bidding by RDSO approved Part II Sources Vendor Item Bid Price (₹) OP-3 HPPA 3,299.99 OP-8 HPPA 4,540.30

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 27

39. As the lowest offer was received from Part II source OP-3, it was considered by the Informant for 15% of net procurable quantity i.e. 602 sets. Next higher offer was also from Part II source OP-8, hence, it was also considered for 10% of net procurable quantity i.e. 402 sets at the counter offer of rate quoted by OP-3. However, it did not accept. Lowest offer from Part I source was from OP-1 which was considered for bulk order. Next higher offer was from Part I source OP-2 which was also considered for bulk order at counter offer of OP-1 as per the splitting clause. However, during negotiations, neither reduced the price. As such, order could only be placed on OP-3 for 602 sets and remaining quantity had to be retendered. 40. Revised Tender No. 30.16.2151-A was opened on 02.09.2016. Details of bids quoted in the same were as follows in which both Part I sources quoted identical prices: Bidding by RDSO approved Part I sources Vendor Item Bid Price (₹) OP-1 SLPR 5,483.75 (L1) OP-2 HPPA 5,483.75 (L1) Bidding by RDSO approved Part II Sources Vendor Item Bid Price (₹) OP-3 HPPA 4,006.80 (L1) OP-10 HPPA 4,674.60 (L2) OP-6 HPPA 4,999.43 (L3) OP-5 HPPA 5,398.16 (L4) 41. In regard to this re-tender, it is noted from the DG report that the following e-mails were exchanged between the parties: (i) E-mail dated 03.06.2016 sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5, and OP-7: “As discussed, allotment of Brake gear bushes is enclosed herewith.” (ii) Response of Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 vide e-mail dated 03.06.2016: “Are these basic prices or all-inclusive prices” (iii) Reply by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 vide e-mail dated 03.06.2016: “These are basic rates ED @ 6% extra + CST/VAT @ 5% or 5.5% extra whichever is applicable. Non-allotties will quote 7-8% higher than PLR.”

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 28 (iv) E-mail dated 04.08.2016 sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to the OPs: “Subject: Allotment for New Bush tenders 75% Qty. S. Tender Tender Rly. Due Dt. Item for Part I Rate Value PPPL BBC No. No. Qty. supplier Kit for Brake Gear Bushes Size 2 x 32 x 20 = 120 Nos., 301621 Bush Size 42 x 32 x 20. NWR 02/09/16 3506 2630 4927 12955547 6477773 6477773” 51-A 32 = 52 Nos. Bush 70 x 57 x 25.5= 32 Nos. Bush Size 32 x 23 x 20 = 08 Nos. 42. The above chain of e-mails exchanged between OP-1/ OP-3, OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5, and OP-7 shows that Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 had sent an e-mail dated 03.06.2016 to the other OPs allotting there-amongst, Brake Gear Bushes tender. In response to such allotment e-mail, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 sought confirmation as to whether the price agreed in the table was the basic price or all-inclusive price. To that, Ms. Shanta Sohoni responded stating that it was the basic price wherein Excise Duty @ 6% extra + CST/ VAT @ 5% was to be added. Thereafter, as per the e-mail dated 04.08.2016 of Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, the rate decided to be quoted by OP-1 and OP-2 in this re-tender was ₹4,927. 43. The actual financial bids received in this re-tender, as submitted by the Informant, are as follows: Supplier Name/ Basic Rate/ S.T Type-S.T Total All-inclusive Excise duty Rank Unit (₹) Rate (%) Value (₹) Moulded Maximum Fibreglass 4927.00 Applicable – CST Extra-5 5483.75 Kolkata (L-5) 6% Power Mould CST 5483.75 ED Inclusive 5483.75 Daman (L-5) Inclusive-5 44. From the above, it is evident that in the Impugned Tender, OP-2 had cleverly quoted an all-inclusive price in the basic rate column of ₹5,483.75 while OP-1 had quoted ₹4,927 as agreed in the allocation table which when summed up with 6% ED and 5% CST was ₹5,483.75. Further, basic rate plus Excise Duty & CST and all-inclusive rates were also identical for both the companies. Therefore, it is evident that there was a clear understanding amongst the parties OP-1 to OP-5 and OP-7 in determination of prices

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 29 and allocation of market in regard to the Impugned Tender, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) of the Act. 45. Further, it is noted from the DG Report that not only with respect to the Impugned Tender, but also with respect to other tenders issued by the different zones of the Indian Railways from FYs 2016-17 to 2019-20 for the procurement of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, various e-mail communications were exchanged between the OPs relating to determination of prices, allocation of market, and rigging of bids. The same are depicted in tabulated form, as under:

[SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 30

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls 11.04.2016 Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-9, Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Allotment for tenders due on 12/4/16 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-9, Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls 16.04.2016 Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls 28.04.2016 Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-9, Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7, Subject: Bush 1 AC.xls allocates tenders between 09.05.2016 OP-9, Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP- Attachment: Bush 1 AC.xls the OPs and sends as 8, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 New Allotment of HPPA Bushes attachment Price List Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush allotment.xls Rates, allocation tables, 1. 03.06.2016 Alok Somani and Mr. Amit Somani Attachment: Bush allotment.xls and share of each party. of OP-1/ OP-3, and OP-7 As discussed, allotment of brake gear bushes is enclosed herewith. She also indicates the Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to 03.06.2016 Are these basic prices or all-inclusive prices percentage by which the Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 non-allotties should quote Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. These are basic rates higher than PLR. 03.06.2016 Alok Somani and Mr. Amit Somani ED @ 6% extra + CST/ VAT @ 5% or 5.5% extra whichever is applicable. of OP-1/ OP-3, and OP-7 Non-allotties will quote 7-8% higher than PLR. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush allotment.xls Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, Mr. Attachment: Bush allotment.xls 17.06.2016 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and Due to oversight, we have quoted lower rate in SCR tender opened on 15/6/16. Therefore, OP-7 we are sending herewith revised allotment for your further action Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 24.06.2016 New Allotment with some changes for Bushes. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 31

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation OP-7 Dear Sir, Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to This time qty/ set of SCR tender due on 27.06.16 is different than earlier tender opened on 15.06.16. Hence price should be Rs. 2,464/- instead of Rs. 1,335/ as mentioned in allocation 24.06.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, and sheet. Please check and revise the allocation sheet. OP-7 Further please also do the allocation for ECOR Tender No. 03163779 due on 14.07.16 for 1550 sets. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush allotment.xls Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. 24.06.2016 Attachment: Bush allotment.xls Alok Somani and Mr. Amit Somani Allotment of Bush with allotment of EcoR of OP-1/ OP-3, and OP-7 WhatsApp chat in addition Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, any thoughts to my proposal Alok Somani: 4 shares for 4 approvals Bhupesh to above e-mails displays WhatsApp chat between Mr. Bhupesh Bafna: Spoke to them. They are all suggesting 3 shares. I think its reasonable. But concerted action between its your call Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP- Mr. Bhupesh Bafna and 2. 23.05.2016 Alok Somani: You need to convince them I am not being unreasonable 5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Mr. Alok Somani regarding Bhupesh Bafna: I have spoken to them a couple of times. We have the following on the OP-3 sharing of market as per approved list. BB, PPPL, JP, QUADRANT, MICRO, POLYMER allocated shares in Alok Somani: So what percentage of total are you proposing to me forthcoming tenders. Ms. Shanta Sohoni ICF tender No. 02167323 due on 01/07/16 is allotted between Polyset & Jai Polypan allocates ICF tender PLR Rate is Rs. 4601/- 3. 27.06.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Polyset will quote Rs. 4,600/- + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% = Total Rs. 5,119.80 per set. between OP-5 and OP-7 JPPL is requested to quote Rs. 5,119.80 (all inclusive) and provides rates to be Pl. confirm the same. quoted. Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Dear Sir, OP-3 and OP-7 are sharing 4. 04.07.2016 OP-7 We are quoting basic rate of Rs. 6,098.00 + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% (Rs. 6,787.07 all incl.) prices to be quoted in Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 32

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation in S. Rly tender due on 06.07.16. So JPPL to quote all-inclusive rate of Rs. 6,787.07. Southern Railway Please confirm the same. forthcoming tender with Dear Sir, each other and Ms. Shanta Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. Okay. We hereby confirm the rate all-inclusive rate of Rs. 6,787.07. 04.07.2016 Sohoni is co-ordinating Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Regards Rajesh Nair such exchange. Mam, Pl. note that SR tender due on 6/07/2016 for 3300 sets allotted to BBC and JPPL with rate of Rs. 6098/- Basic. BBC is now quoting sales tax rate @ 5% whereas JPPL should quote 5.5% as per Government of Rajasthan, then there is a difference in the total rate. 04.07.2016 Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. Pl. confirm what rate we have to quote on this tender? Whether it is all inclusive rate and Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 also confirm from BBC for their rates. Pl. reply immediately. Also there is a confusion in ICF tender opened on 1/7/2016 as BBC rate is L2 Regards Rajesh Nair 04.07.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Pl. discuss with BBC before quoting the rate. Please note the following:- Ms. Shanta Sohoni clarifies a) Tenders where HPPA/ SLPR bushes are specified, we quote only for SLPR bushes and not Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to to the OPs that cartel is 04.07.2016 for HPPA bushes OP-7 only for tenders where both b) Tender where only HPPA bushes are specified, we quote in BBC and are eligible for part types of bushes – SLPR 2 qtys which are out of scope of present arrangement. Sir, and HPPA are required. 5. We have understanding for P1 approved firms In reply, OP-7 states that Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. PPPL & PM = 2 firms for HPPA pool for tenders for only 06.07.2016 Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, and BBC & MFGP= 2 firms for SLPR HPPA Bushes should also OP-7 JPPL = 1 firm or HPPA be continued as it was BBC firms cannot quote for tenders floated only for HPPA bushes and Polyset Group and JPPL cannot quote for tenders floated for SLPR bushes. between OP-7 and OP-5

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 33

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Therefore, henceforth, allotments will be done where both types of bushes are required in previously. Ms. Shanta same tender. If requirement is for anyone type of bush i.e. HPPA or SLPR separately, those Sohoni agrees to the same tenders will not be allotted and accounted for pool. stating that allocation shall Pl. confirm. be 33% share for each firm. Mam, JPPL agrees in this matter. But if any tender for separate HPPA bushes, PPPL & JPPL should have pool and there should be a separate account and allocation for those tenders to avoid any underquote or Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. misunderstanding. 06.07.2016 Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Earlier also PPPL & JPPL have such type of allocation arrangements and our suggestion is that we both (PPPL & JPPL) continue this arrangement in Part 1 category. Please Confirm, Regards Rajesh Nair, 06.07.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Yes, then we will make separate account and ratio will be 2:1 i.e. 33% share to each firm As per discussion had with Shri Rajiv, we are doing allotments between Jai Polypan and Polyset for HPPA Bushes Part I only. 30.07.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 OP-7 and Ms. Shanta Ratio 2:1 (Polyset 2 firms and JPPL 1 firm) Any doubt, pl. discuss Sohoni discuss that pool 6. Mam, for combined HPPA/ SLPR 01.08.2016 Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. OK. There should be separate account for HPPA & SLPR combined tenders. tenders and for only HPPA Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Regards tenders should be separate. Rajeev Dudhani 01.08.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Yes, we will continue SLPR/ HPPA A/c. separately and HPPA A/c. separately. Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni to Mr. allocates tenders between Subject: Allotment for New Bush tenders 7. 04.08.2016 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and the OPs and sends as Attachments: Bush allotment.xls OP-7 attachment Price List Rates, allocation tables,

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 34

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation and share of each party. Mam, Mr. Rajesh Nair and Ms. We will quote all-inclusive rate of Rs. 5,509.86 per set for NFR HPPA tender No. 30161001 Shanta Sohoni discuss Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. due on 22/8/2016, in which JPPL & PPPL are equal ratio. 19.08.2016 about the prices to be Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Pl. confirm the same so that we can submit the BID. 8. quoted in North Western Thanks & Regards, Rajesh Nair Railway tender that is to be You are requested to quote Rs. 5,509.85 all inclusive. equally distributed between 20.08.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Polyset will quote Rs. 4,950.45 per pc. + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% = Rs. 5,509.85 per set OP-5 and OP-7. Dear Sir, Prices to be quoted in SCR Tender No. 30163695-C due on 9/9/2016 for 4876 sets allocated for BBC & JPPL equally. South Central Railway Ms. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. 06.09.2016 JPPL will quote all-inclusive of Rs. 2,755.49 per set (Basic + 6% + 5.5%) tender were discussed Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Kindly confirm the above all inclusive rate to upload the tender between OP-3 and OP-7.

Thanks & Regards Then OP-3 informs Ms. Rajesh Nair Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 that Dear Sir, Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to OK then you quote Rs. 2,755.49 per set all inclusive. We will quote rate with break up as due to OP-5’s mistake of 06.09.2016 OP-7 below:- quoting low prices, OP-3 is 9. Basic – 2,475.73 + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% (Rs. 2,755.49 all inclusive). also being asked to quote This has reference to your SMS to Shri Bhupesh Ms. Shanta Sohoni to Mr. Alok lower during negotiations. 26.09.2016 By mistake we have quoted Rate Rs. 2190/- per set + ED 6% + CST 5% and therefore we Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 He stated that OP-7 is the have accepted order for 1045 sets in Power Mould joint allottee for the stated In future, do not allot us SCR tenders for kits. Because of your mistake, we are also being Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to 26.09.2016 asked to also reduce the rates. Now please advise JPPL who were the joint allotees for this tender; therefore, he should Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 tender regarding action to be taken when SCR calls for negotiations. also be informed of the 26.09.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Pl. reply. action to be taken during 26.09.2016 OP-7 to Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Mam, negotiations called by the As such we have not received any call for negotiation from SCR for this tender.

In future, if

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 35

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation received we will inform you. Railways. Regards Ms. Shanta Sohoni thus, Rajeev Dudhani informs OP-7 that as tender is to be shared between Pl. inform BBC because they are sharing this tender with you. OP-7 and OP-3, OP-7 may Secondly, due to our mistake, you should not accept lower rate and you can show your S. 26.09.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 discuss with OP-3 Rly. Tender advance for getting your quoted rate. Pl. discuss with Mr. Somani for the same. accordingly, however, it need not reduce prices. Power Mold had quoted rate Rs. 2,190/- per set + ED 6% + CST 5% in one of earlier tenders of SC Rly. Therefore, SC Rly has called for negotiation against tender opened on 9.9.16. Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to We would not be attending the negotiations and would be sending a letter to them offering OP-3 informs price that it 13.10.2016 OP-7 them discount of Rs. 274/- on the basic rates. The quoted basic rate was Rs. 2.464/-. Thus. will offer during after giving the above discount, our basic rate would become Rs. 2,190/- per set. ED @ 6% negotiations to South 10. and CST @ 5% would be extra. Central Railway to OP-7 Jai Polypan to please confirm that they would be also be quoting as above. Okay. Agreed to send letter to SCR showing that our rate will be Rs. 2437.47 per set and seeks confirmation OP-7 to Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ 13.10.2016 (inclusive of 6% ED & 5.5% Sales Tax) from for the same. OP-3 BBC rate will be Rs. 2190/ + 6% + 5% - 2437.47. it is correct sir, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to 13.10.2016 Yes, it is correct OP-7 Mam, OP-7 informs Ms. Shanta P1. note that we will be quoting to WCR Tender due on 28/10/2016 Rs. 1,811.96 per set Sohoni of the rates to be (all-inclusive i.e. basic + 6% + 5.5%) Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Ms. 11. 25.10.2016 PPPL should quote basic 1,628 + 6% + 5% = 1,811.96 per set. quoted in Western Central Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 P1. confirm the above as PPPL & JPPL are equally allotted. Railway tender as tender Thanks & Regards, had been allocated equally Rajesh Nair

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 36

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation 25.10.2016 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 o.k. under cartel arrangement. Subject: RE: Bush allotment OF sr DUE ON 4/11/16 Ms. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to OP-3 asks other parties to Attachments: SR tender enquiry for HPPA Collar Bush due on 04.11.15.pdf Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-7, Dear Sir, withdraw their allocation 12. 03.11.2016 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP- We request you to please withdraw the allocation against S. Rly Tender No. 74160058 due against Southern Railway 3 on 04.11.16 as the tender is for only HPPA Collar Bush which is mentioned under tender. Instructions/ Remarks Dear Sir, OP-3 informs rates to be Please note that NR tender due on 18.11.2016 for 350 sets of Brake Gear Bushes allotted to Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to both BBC and JPPL with basic rate of Rs. 5,036/-. quoted in Northern 13. 15.11.2016 OP-7 We are quoting basic rate of Rs. 5,036.00 + ED @ 6% + CST @ 5% (Rs. 5,605.07 all Incl.) Railway tender allocated to in N Rly. tender due on 18.11.16. So JPPL to quote all-inclusive rate of Rs. 5,605.07. Please OP-3 and OP-7. confirm the same. Prices to be quoted by OP- 3 and OP-6 and other OPs E. Rly. Tender no. 11161074 due on 06/12/16 for 3334 sets in Eastern Railway tender Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. This tender is allotted between BBC and CSL are fixed by Ms. Shanta Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. MFP (group of BBC) will quote Rs. 5,175/- per set + ED @ 6%+ CST @ 5% = Rs. 14. 06.12.2016 Sohoni of OP-5. She also Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-7, 5,759.77 all inclusive indicates the percentage by OP-6, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 CSL will quote Rs. 5,155/- per set + ED @ 6% + GST @5% = Rs. 737.51 all inclusive Non allotties should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR" which the non-allotties should quote higher than PLR. Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. circulates allocation table Subject: Bush allotment Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. 15. 21.12.2016 Attachments: Bush AC-1.xls allotting forthcoming Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP-7, New Allotment of N Rly. tenders due on 23/12/16 Northern Railway tenders OP-6, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 along with Price List Rates

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 37

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation amongst the OPs. Ms. Shanta Sohoni states that tenders are allocated between 03 entities and Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. they should mutually Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. Subject: New allotment of Bushes discuss and quote. She also Attachments: Bush Ac-1.xls 16. 16.01.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, sends as attachment revised Tenders distributed between 3 firms should mutually discuss and quote the tenders. OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- Price List Rates, list of Non-allottees should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR 10 approved suppliers for HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes, and allocation of tenders. Dear Sir/ Madam WE are not able to quote the RCF tender 2301160616 due on 23.2.17 allotted to us as it doesn't allow us to quote, same time we are also not able to quote in the W rly tender due on Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to 22.2.17. OP-8 requests for allotment 17.02.2017 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 We will ensure that RCF and W rly add our firm name in their future tenders so that we can of different tender than quote. 17. those allotted but Ms. We request you to kindly change the allotment and allot us SCR tender due on 1.3.2017 Shanta Sohoni declines the allot them the RCF tender and oblige. Dear Sir, request made by OP-8. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. We have not allotted below mentioned both tenders to your a/c. 17.02.2017 Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 RCF tender is allotted to Quadrant & W. Rly. tender is allotted to BBC. So, allotment will remain same. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush Ac-1.xls Ms. Shanta Sohoni Attachments: Bush Ac-1.xls 18. 24.02.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and allocates entire quantity of As requested by Jai Polypan, we have allotted entire quantity of WCR tender No. 30171157 OP-7 West Central Railway due on 28/3/17 is allotted to BBC.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 38

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation BBC should quote for entire tender quantity. tender to OP-3 on request Jai Polypan will quote higher rate in this tender and their shortfall will be adjusted in the of OP-7. She asks OP-7 to next tender. quote higher rate in the Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. tender and their shortfall Pl. note that WCR tenders 30171156 & 30171157 due on 28/3/17 both tenders are allotted Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, 24.03.2017 to CSL would be adjusted in next OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- Non-allotties should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR tender. Ms. Shanta Sohoni 10 also sends as attachment revised Price List Rates, list of approved suppliers for HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes, and allocation of tenders and share. Thereafter, Ms. Shanta Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. ER tender due on 6/12/16 was allotted between BBC and CSL. Sohoni re-allocates West Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. 3250 sets finalized in favour of BBC and bal. qty. dropped and CSL is not received any Central railway tenders to 24.03.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, order. OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP- Hence, WCR tender No. 30171156 due on 28.3.17 has been allotted to CSL. OP-6 as Eastern Railway BBC is requested to quote minimum 8% higher than PLR. tender allotted to OP-3 and 10 OP-6 was finalised only in favour of OP-3 and OP-6 had received nothing. Hence, Ms. Shanta Sohoni requests OP-3 to quote higher in West Central Railway tender.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 39

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. attachment revised Price Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. List Rates, list of approved Subject: New Allotment of Bushes. 19. 01.04.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, suppliers for HPPA Bushes Attachments: Bush AC-1.xls OP-7, and Mr. R..K. Singh of OP-and SLPR Bushes, and 10 allocation of tenders and share. Subject: Bush AC-2.xls Ms. Shanta Sohoni Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls provides list of approved As per latest RDSO’s Vendor Directory published on 18th April 2017, following firms are Approved Vendors vendors as on 18.04.2017 1. M/s. Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (for HPPA) and provides business share Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 2. M/s. Power Mould (for HPPA) for each firm. She sends as 3. M/s. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (for HPPA) 20. 02.05.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and attachment revised Price 4. M/s. Black Burn & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for SLPR) OP-7 List Rates, list of approved 5. M/s. Moulded Fibreglass Products (for SLPR) Business share will be distributed between above 5 firms. Each firm will get 20% share suppliers for HPPA Bushes Therefore PPPL 40% and SLPR Bushes, and BBC: 40% allocation of tenders and JPPL:20% share. Tenders opened after 01/05/2017 is allotted accordingly. Subject: Revised allotment of HPPA Bush Ms. Shanta Sohoni notes Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls that OP-10 has also Dear All, Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-3, received approval and 21. 03.06.2017 M/s. Quadrant Surlon got approval as “Approved Vendors” OP-7, and OP-10 therefore, provides revised Therefore, we have worked out individual share including M/s. Quadrant and allotment of Price List Rates, list of pending bushes has been revised. All are requested to quote the rates as per revised allotment. approved suppliers for Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 40

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes, and allocation of tenders and list of allocated share. Ms. Shanta Sohoni informs the OPs of addition of OP- Subject: Bush Allotment 4 as Part-I Vendor and Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls provides as attachment Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Our firm M/s. Anju Techno Industries is upgraded as “Approved Vendor” w.e.f. 12/06/2017. revised Price List Rates, 22. 13.06.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-7, Now, total approved vendors are seven (7) list of approved suppliers and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Share for each firm has been revised and allotment for future tenders are done accordingly. for HPPA Bushes and We have done some changes in the earlier allotted tenders. SLPR Bushes, and All are requested to quote the tenders as per revised allotment allocation of tenders and share. Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to Mr. Alok Somani asks Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. allotment as Part II vendors BBCPL’s allocation in developmental sources should be for 2 firms 19.06.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, a) Skylark as developmental source in PR bushes to be made for both OP-11 Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP- b) BBCPL as developmental source in HPPA bushes for SLPR Bushes and OP-3 7, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 for HPPA Bushes. 23. Subject: Allotment of Brake gear bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni states Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls that allotment would be Dear All, Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, made for both Part I and 19.06.2017 It is decided that we will make allotment for Approved Vendors as well as Development Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, OP- Part II Vendors and players Vendors. 7, and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 who have not been allotted Account for Approved Vendor is worked out on the basis of 80% of the tender quantity and Account for Development Vendor is worked out on the basis of 2O% of the tender quantity. anything in a tender, would

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 41

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Development Vender should quote 2.5% less than PLR for allotted firms quote minimum 8% higher Non-allotties should quote minimum 8% higher than PLR. than Price List Rate. She also provides as attachment revised Price List Rates, list of approved suppliers for HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes, and allocation of tenders and share. Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to Dear All Mr. Harsha Gumballi 21.06.2017 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Have quoted in SWR tender due tomorrow according to the PLR writes to Ms. Shanta Subject: Re: Allotment of WSWR tender due 27/6/18 Sohoni with CC to other Attachments: SWR Brake Gear Bush Comparative statement 22.6.17.pdf OPs that though it had Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to Dear All, 27.06.2017 quoted in South Western Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 South Western Rly tender opened on 22.6.17 was allotted to us but was quoted less by Railway tender as per Price Blackburn and Calstar. 24. Please update the CPO accordingly. List Rate circulated, it did not get the tender which Dear All was given to OP-3 and OP- We request you to kindly update the CPO as we are not L1 in our allotted tender SWR 301 Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to 6 who quoted below their 21.07.2017 71250A opened on 22.6.17 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 decided prices. Hence, We have not quoted in the other tender no 15160656 W Rly opened on 3.7.2017. allocation sheet be updated Kindly do the needful. accordingly. Dear Sir, Ms. Shanta Sohoni states Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. For negotiation of HPPA Bushes of WR Tender No. 15160657 opened on 4/5/17, Mr. Bafna 25. 09.08.2017 that based on discussion Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 has spoken to Mr. Somani and decided that M/s Moulded Fibre will send letter giving between Mr. Bhupesh revised rate of Rs. 1,970/- basic + GST @ 5% extra.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 42

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation M/s Power Mould will attend the meeting and giving the same revised rate. Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, OP-1 will quote revised rate and OP- 2 will quote same rate in negotiations in respect of Western Railway tender. Ms. Shanta Sohoni states that high value tenders would be split in 60:40 Dear Sir, It is difficult to finalise the tender when both companies rates are same and it is looking like ratio as it was difficult to cartel between both the firms. finalise tenders if both Therefore, it is decided that high value tenders will be divided 60:40 ratio. companies quote same Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. In the ECR tender we will quote Rs. 4,581/- + GST @ 5% = Rs. 4,810.05 per set all 26. 17.08.2017 price and it would indicate Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 inclusive. cartel between them. She You are requested to quote Rs. 4,590/- + GST @ 5% = Rs. 4,819.50 per set all inclusive. So, you will get counter offer of our rate for 40% quantity and easy to Rly. officer for also provides rates to be finalisation of tender. quoted by OP-3 and OP-5 Pl. confirm, in Eastern Central Railway tender for OP-5 to receive 40% quantity. Subject: New Allotment of Brake gear Bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni revises Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls price list rates w.e.f. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear All, 27. 04.12.2017 01.12.2017 and sends as R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 We are revising our Price List rates w.e.f. 01/12/2017. attachment revised Price Therefore, all are requested to quote revised rates for tenders opening after 01/12/2017. Allotment is done with revised rates only. List Rates, list of approved

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 43

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation suppliers for HPPA Bushes and SLPR Bushes, and allocation of tenders and share. Dear Madam, Please find below status of ECoR Tender No. 03171811 opened on 18.08.17 S. Tender Opened Tender Qty PO recd. Rly Remarks No. No. on Qty allotted for Qty. 1075 sets allotted to us but PO has been received by us for only 1042 OP-3 requests dropping Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Sets. Hence 33 sets should be 05.12.2017 3361 1075 1042 amount to reflect reduction Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 1. ECoR 03171811 18.08.17 considered as dropped & value sets sets sets should be reversed from our A/C. in purchase order actually Please update the allocation sheet made; however, OP-5 28. accordingly. Also please find attached herewith list of tenders allotted to us but POs have been placed on refuses and states that if developmental vendor. Hence we request you to please consider these tenders as dropped & 100% order is placed on value should be reversed rom out A/C. OP-3, full amount will be Dear Sir, reflected in its account. We have updated your ECoR record. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. As per your statement, all these orders are finalized in favour of BBC i.e. your firm and 06.12.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 where 100% order is placed on your firm, those tender will be taken in your account because your quoted rates are less than 15-20% lower than PLR and therefore, these tenders are not finalized on Approved supplier. Dear All, Ms. Shanta Sohoni makes Allotment for new tenders are enclosed. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. allocation for new tenders. Single tenders allotted to BBC should quote in their Firm which is approved for “Approved 29. 20.12.2017 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-7, vendor” and not in “Dev. Source”. OP-3 makes it clear that it and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 We are accounting 80% tender quantity and allotted to Approved Vendors Only. Therefore, is now a Part I vendor and tenders allotted to approved vendors should not under quote from their “Dev. Source firm” not Part II vendor. OP-7 and grab the order.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 44

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Please note the following:- requests that Part II sources 1. That we are not in the pool for developmental source and this has been our stance right should also run in pool just from the beginning. like Part I sources effective 2. As you all know, we are offering much lesser rates from developmental source Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to from 01.01.2018. 21.12.2017 irrespective of whether the allocation for approved source is in our favour. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 3. We do not pursue with railways to place order on developmental source bypassing higher offer of approved sources. If despite not pursuing, railways offer full quantity on developmental source, we cannot help it. Dear Sir, OP-7 to Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Only 3 firms are in development source. Pl. make pool in dev. source also to avoid any disturbance in getting orders of approved vendors. Otherwise, no meaning to run approved 22.12.2017 OP-3, and Ms. Shanta Sohoni of sources pool. OP-5 4. Our humble request is that all the dev. source should run under pool with effect from 1st January 2018. Dear Madam, OP-3 requests Ms. Shanta Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to 28.12.2017 We have a huge shortfall in the accounting period 1.6.16 to 28.11.16. Details are attached. Sohoni to make future Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Please incorporate the same in the accounts and make future allocations accordingly. allocations to it in view of the fact that it had huge 30. Dear Sir, shortfall in accounting Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 29.12.2017 Now, we have accounted tenders w.e.f. 01/05/2017 and therefore we cannot update earlier period 01.06.2016 to Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 tender position in this statement. 28.11.2016. Ms. Shanta Sohoni however, refuses. Sir, OP-3 asks OP-5 to tell the NER Tender No. 22160770A due on 19.01.2018 for 8335 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to rate to be quoted in North 31. 15.01.2018 allotted to both PPPL (60% of 80% qty) & BBC (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 2,714. 00 per set Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 Eastern Railway tender. basic. Ms. Shanta Sohoni replies Please advise what rate both of us to quote.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 45

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear Sir, with the rates to be quoted. Polyset will quote Rs. 2,714/- per set + GST @ 5% = Total Rs. 2,849.70 per set all incl. 15.01.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur and Mr. Alok BBC will quote Rs. 2,725/- per set + GST @ 5% = Total Rs. 2,861.25 per set all incl. Somani of OP-3 Pl. confirm the same Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. Mam, Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP- Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. We are not interested in NFR (Dibrugarh) (due on 24/4/18) tender. Pl. allot other firm and 7 states that OP-7 is not 21.04.2018 remove this amount from our account. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and interested in North Western Best regards Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Railway tender allocated to 32. Rajeev Dudhani it. But Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7, Dear Sir, states that due to shortfall, 21.04.2018 Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Due to shortfall this Tender is allotted to you. There is no choice, but to request you to this tender was allocated to and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 quote for this tender it and there are no choices.

Sir, E. Rly. Tender No. 11171082A due on 01.05.2018 for 3013 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is OP-3 writes to Ms. Shanta Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to allotted to both BBC (60% of 80% qty) & PPPL (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 5,429.00 per set Sohoni that Eastern 24.04.2018 Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 basic. Railway tender is allocated Please advise what rate BBC & PPPL should quote. This is re-tender. In earlier tender 33. between itself and OP-5 opened on 20.12.17, BBC had quoted Rs. 5,329.00 per set basic. and so what rates should be Sir, Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. E. Rly. Tender No. 11171082A due on 01.05.2018 for 3013 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes. quoted. Ms. Shanta Sohoni 24.04.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 5,429/-per set + GST @5% = Total Rs. 5,700.45 provides rates to be quoted. PPPL will quote Rs. 5,445/- per set + GST @5% = Total Rs. 5717.25 Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to Dear Madam, OP-3 requests Ms. Shanta NR tender due on 08.06.18 for 750 sets is floated by AMV/ LKO and would not be split 60/ 07.06.2018 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-7, Sohoni for changes in 40. Therefore, we request for change in allocation either 80% in our favor or 80% in favor 34. and Mr. R.K.

Singh of OP-10 allocation of Northern of Quadrant. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC is requested to quote higher rate in NR-AMV tender. We will account this tender in Railway tender between 07.06.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and Quadrant account. itself and OP-10. Ms.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 46

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Shanta Sohoni obliges. Ms. Shanta Sohoni CR Tender No. 38182236 due on 02-07-18 is allotted between PPPL and BBC PPPL will Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. quote Rs. 2,952/- + GST @5% = Rs. 3,099.60 per set (all incl.) provides rates to be quoted 35. 20.06.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 2,962/- + GST @5% = Rs. 3,110.10 per set (all incl.) by OP-5 and OP-3 in Pl. confirm Central Railways tender. NFR tender 30181001 due on 16/07/2018 is allotted between BBC and PPPL Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC will quote Rs. 5,774/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,062.70 per set (all incl.) Ms. Shanta Sohoni 11.07.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 PPPL will quote Rs. 5,765/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,053.25 per set (all incl.) provides rates to be quoted Pl. confirm 36. by OP-3 and OP-5 in Revised Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC will quote Rs. 5,774/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,062.70 per set (all inc1) North-East Frontier 11.07.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 PPPL will quote Rs. 5,783.50 + GST @5% = Rs. 6,072.67 per set (all incl.) Railway tender. Pl. confirm Dear Sir, Ms. Shanta Sohoni NWR Tender No. 30182151D due on 04-09-18 for 2549 sets allotted between PPPL and Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. BBC provides rates to be quoted 37. 01.09.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Polyset will quote Rs. 6,057/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,359.85 per set (all inclusive) by OP-3 and OP-5 in North BBC will quote Rs. 6,075/- + GST @5% = Rs. 6,378.75 per set (all inclusive) Western Railway tender. Pl. confirm the same Sir, OP-3 seeks advice from Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to W. Rly. Tender No. 15180683 due on 06.12.2018 for 2,52,148 Nos. Brake Gear Bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni on price 30.11.2018 (Item-3) is allotted to both PPPL (60% of 80% qty) & BBC (40% of 80% I qty) @ Rs. 33.50 Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 to be quoted in Western per no. basic. Railway tender allocated 38. Please advise what rate BBC should quote in this tender. between OP-3 and OP-5. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear Sir, Ms. Shanta Sohoni Polyset will quote Rs. 33.50 per pc. + GST @ 5% and BBC will quote 33.60 per pc. + GST 30.11.2018 Tarkeshwar Thakur and Mr. Alok @ 5% provides prices to be Somani of OP-3 Pl. confirm quoted.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 47

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Dear Sir, SER Tender No. 30181434A due on 07.01.2019 for 2013 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to allotted to both BBC (60% of 80% qty) & JPPL (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 6,058.00 per set OP-3 advises OP-7 the rate 04.01.2019 OP-7 basic quotation for South Eastern 39. So in this tender, we will quote list price i.e. Rs. 6,058. 00 per set basic. You are advised to Railway tender, which OP-quote Rs. 6,065.00 per set basic. Please confirm. 7 agrees to. OP-7 to Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of Dear Sir, 04.01.2019 OP-3 OK agreed. We will quote R& 6065 per set basic + GST as suggested by you. Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as attachment revised Price Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. List Rates, list of approved R.K. Singh of OP-10, Mr. Ram Subject: New allotment of Bushes 40. 08.01.2019 suppliers for HPPA Bushes Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Attachments: Bush Ac-2.xls and SLPR Bushes, and Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7 allocation of tenders and share. Dear All, Ms. Shanta Sohoni states Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-6, Calstar Steel Ltd. got approval as Approved source w.e.f. 01/03/2019 Accordingly there are now 8 approved supplier and share has been revised. that as OP-6 is now also 27.02.2019 Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, We have made allotment accordingly. Part-I Vendor, so shares are Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 Non-allotties should quote minimum 8 higher than PLR re-allocated accordingly. Non-allotties should quote minimum 8-10% higher than PLR However, Mr. Luv Kumar 41. Mr. Luv Kumar of OP-10 to Ms. of OP-10 and Mr. Bhupesh Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-6, Mr. 27.02.2019 Please increase prices in order to compensate Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. want higher prices for R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 compensating lesser Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ 27.02.2019 I am in agreement with Luv Kumar allocated share. OP-5 to Mr. Luv Kumar and Mr.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 48

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation R.K. Singh of OP-10, Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7 Dear Sir, OP-6 states that it would We would like to bring to attention of all that we have presently agreed to give supporting provide supporting quotation up to 20-03-2019 till an all-party meeting is called and all pending issues are Mr. Vikas Aggarwal of OP-6 to Ms. 42. 02.03.2019 decided. quotations until 20.03.2019 Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 We shall request the administrator to call for a meeting at the earliest possible. till all-party meeting is Regards, called. VA(CSL) Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. Dear all, OP-7 requests allocation of Pl. note that NWR-JU tender retendered on 25/03/2019. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. North Western Railway 43. 18.03.2019 Kindly revise the allocation of this tender to us. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, tender to it as it has been Regards and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 re-tendered. Rajeev Dudhani Dear All, As you all are aware that Calstar was got approval of Approved Vendor on 07/01/2019 and OP-7 states that as OP-6 Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. they are getting orders of ER & SER tenders opened on 07/01/2019 has become approved So kindly re-check the accounts and issue excess & shortages. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. vendor, re-checking of 26.03.2019 We are in a loss of around 2.5 crores during 2018-2019 F. Y. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. excess and shortages is How we can full fill our losses. 44. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-6 We request your valued comments in this matter required as OP-7 has Best Regards suffered losses. He also Rajeev Dudhani states that OP-6 Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. Subject: Re: Allotment of new tenders underquoted in Western Attachments: comparative of L-parel HPPA tender.pdf 05.04.2019 Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. Railway tender. Dear All, Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Pl. see comparative statement of today’s HPPA tender. It was allocated to JPPL. But

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 49

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-6 Calstar underquoted. How we can run adjustment between all firm. We are in loss of 2.75 crores in this adjustment of business. You all are requested to comment on this matter. Regards Rajeev Dudhani Dear Sir, OP-7 provides rates to be JFPL & BBC are allotted NWR tender due on 10/04/2019 (60%+40%) quoted by itself and OP-3 JPPL will quote PLR (i.e. 6,058/- Basic + 5% GST) Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. for North Western Railway 08.04.2019 BBC will quote Rs. 6,067/- Basic + 5% GST Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 tender. Kindly confirm the above rate immediately Thanks & Regards However, as tender date 45. Rajesh Nair got extended, Ms. Shanta Subject: Bush Allotment Sohoni changed allocation Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-3.xls for the tender. She sends as Due date for NWR tender is postponed to 19/04/2019 12.04.2019 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, attachment revised Price Allocation for NWR tender is changed. Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 List Rates, and allocation All are requested to quote strictly as per allocation. Non-allotties should quote minimum 8-10% higher than PLR of tenders and share. Mam, Please note that as per information received from NER for tender No. 10191100 opened on OP-7 informs that as one Mr. Rajeev Dudhani of OP-7 to Ms. 11/03/2019 has cancelled due to quantity received to consignee against earlier North Eastern Railway Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. tender/order. 46. 28.05.2019 tender allocated to it has Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-6, Kindly remove this amount from our account. been cancelled, same be and Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 Pl. update the account Regards removed from its account. Rajeev Dudhani Subject: Bush allotment Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as 47. 25.07.2019 Attachments: Bush AC-3.xls R.K. Singh of OP-10, Mr. Ram attachment, revised Price Dear All,

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 50

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar We have made some changes in the earlier allotment. List Rates, and allocation Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7 All are requested to quote the tenders as per revised allotment of tenders and share. Ms. Shanta Sohoni N. Rly. tender No. 07191 774 due on 08-08-2019 for 6526 sets of Brake gear bushes provides rates to be quoted This tender is allotted between PPPL and BBC Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 48. 03.08.2019 PPPL will quote Rs. 6,192/- per set + GST @5% = Rs. 6,501.60 per set (all incl.) in Northern Railway tender Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 6,205/- per set + GST @5% = Rs. 6,515.25 per set (all incl.). allocated between OP-3 Pl. confirm the same and OP-5. Attn: Shri Rajiv Dudhani/ Shri Rajesh Nair As per allocation, this tender was allotted between Polyset and Black Burn. How Jai OP-5 asks OP-7 as to how 08.08.2019 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to OP-7 Polypan has quoted lower rate i.e. 5-6% lower than PLR. has it underquoted in You are requested to withdraw your offer immediately under intimation to us Otherwise it 49. Northern Railway tender will be difficult to run the pool. and requests it to withdraw Dear Vishalbhai Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ 08.08.2019 Whatever be the reason for underquoting, we request you to withdraw your offer it offer.

OP-5 to OP-7 immediately otherwise the pool may break. Subject: New allotment of Bushes Ms. Shanta Sohoni asks the Attachments: Bush Ac-3.xls OPs to not break Price List Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear all, Rate or underquote. R.K. Singh of OP-10, Mr. Ram Pl. do not break the PLR and underquote any of the tender which is not allotted to you 50. 13.08.2019 Further, as attachment, she Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Feel free for discussion of any tender allotment. We will try to update your suggestions if sends revised Price List Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7 possible. Non-allotties should quote strictly 8-10% higher than PLR. Rates and allocation of Regards tenders and share. Dear All, OP-6 provides to Ms. We shall be quoting the following rates in N.F. Railway Tener No. 30190409 Due on 09-10- Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6 to Ms. Shanta Sohoni, the rates 51. 03.10.2019 2019 Qty – 8291 Nos. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 OP-6 would quote in North Consignee QTY Basic Rate Freight GST All-inclusive rate DBRT Workshop 709 Nos. 90/- 30/- 12% 134.40 Frontier Railway tender KIR GSD 196 Nos. 90/- 50/- 12% 156.80

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 51

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation NBQ Workshop 802 Nos. 90 25/- 12% 128.00 PNO GSD 6584 Nos. 90/- 10/- 12% 112.00 All non-allotties are requested to quote 8-10% higher. Dear Sir, ER Tender No. 11191074 due on 09.09.19 for 5016 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is allotted to Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to both BBC (60% of 80% qty,) & Quadrant (40% of 80% qty) @ Rs. 6,058.00 per set basic 05.09.2019 Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 So in this tender, we will quote list price i.e. Rs. 6,058.00 per set basic You are advised to quote Rs. 6,075. 00 per set basic OP-3 provides rates to be Please confirm quoted in Eastern Railway Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 to Mr. tender allocated to OP-3 05.09.2019 OK Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 and OP-10, to OP-10. We have discussed with Polymer Products and they have agreed that they will quote 8% Ms. Shanta Sohoni states 52. higher than PLR (PLR Rs. 6,058/- + GST @5%) Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. that OP-8 has agreed to You both are requested to quote PLR and do not reduce the price 09.09.2019 R.K. Singh of OP-10 and Mr. quote higher in this tender. Kit for HPPA Brake gear bushes for 4 items as per Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 RDSO SK-81039 Alt. 15. Item No. 2 = 120 nos., 5016 OP-10 thereafter asks OP-3 ER 11191074 09/09/2019 6058/- Item No. 3 = 52 nos., Item No. 7 = 32 Nos., Item sets as to why did it underquote No. 11 = 8 Nos. Subject: Re: ER Tender No. 11191074 due on 09.09.19 for 5016 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes than rates agreed. Attachments: Eastern Railway – HPPA Bush (09.09.19).pdf Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 to Mr. 09.09.2019 Dear Mr. Thakur, Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Can you please let us know why you have under quoted in ER tender from the rates as agreed below Attachments: MOM.pdf; Bush Ac-4.xls Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Minutes of Meeting circulates Minutes of Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. R.K. Meeting was held at Mumbai on 10/09/2019. Members were present: Meeting held on 53. 11.09.2019 Singh of OP-10, Mr. Tarkeshwar 1. Shri Bhupesh Bafna: M/s. Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 10.09.2019 at Mumbai, in Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Harsha 2. Shri Vishal Baid: M/s. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. which discussions Gumballi of OP-8, and OP-7 3. Shri Alok Somani: M/s. Black Burn & Co. Pvt. Ltd. pertaining to approved 4. Shri R. K. Singh: M/s. Quadrant EPC Surlon India Ltd.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 52

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Following points agreed: vendors and rates to be 1. M/s. Calstar Steel Ltd got approval as “Approved Vender” for supply of HPPA Brake revised were provided. gear bushes w.e.f. 07/01/2019. Hence orders for CSL will be accounted for tender opened Further, she sends as on and after 07/01/2019. Accordingly statement will be circulated and close the account revised Price List Rates, up to 22/08/2019 (Bush Ac-3) 2. M/s. Polymer Products of India got approval as “Approved Vendor” for supply of HPPA and allocation of tenders Brake gear bushes w.e.f. 23/08/2019. Therefore, New account generated with earlier and share. OP-6 replies excess/shortage including Polymer Products in the pool. Tender opened on and after apologising for not being 23/08/2019 where Polymer is L1 will be accounted. (Bush Ac 4) able to attend meeting and 3. PLR will be increased @ 5% w.e.f. 11th September 2019. states that after upgradation 4. Now M/s. Moulded Fibre Glass Products is only the firm under “Dev Source”. Shri Somani is agreed that henceforth, they will quote approx.

5% less than PLR in M/s. of OP-8, distribution which Moulded Fibre. was already Further, if 100% P0 awarded to “Dev. Source”, same will be accounted in the pool. disproportionate, has Dear Sir, become even more skewed. We are sorry for not being able to cone to the meeting. Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6 to Ms. We find that the distribution which was already disproportionate has become even more 12.09.2019 Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 skewed with the up gradation of Polymer Products, and we are not getting a fair share. So in all fairness both Pt-II and Pt-I quantity should be taken into account for calculation of individual share. Dear Sir, C. Rly. tender No. 38192236 opened on 17/09/2019 was allotted between Polyset and Ms. Shanta Sohoni seeks Calstar explanation from OP-10 for Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 18.09.2019 But your firm has quoted lower rate. Pl. explain why? quoting lower rate in R.K. Singh of OP-10 If we have to run the pool, such mistakes are not acceptable. 54. Central Railway tender and You are requested to withdraw your offer immediately and send withdrawal letter copy in asks it to withdraw.

Mr. the pool for confirmation Subject: Re: C. Rly. Tender No. 38192236 due 17-09-19 R.K. Singh of OP-10 Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 to Ms. 19.09.2019 Attachment: CR-CSTM.pdf withdraws from tender. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 Please find herewith attached our request submitted to Central Railway for withdrawal of Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 53

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation our offer for the below said tender. This is for your kind information please Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, we both need to agree on some changes in the distribution % of FIPPA share of business otherwise this business will become non profitable & then will be very difficult to revive. So its my request to you to agree with what I'm proposing. Alok Somani: What r u proposing? Bhupesh Bafna: Sending you in a few minutes 19.09.2019 Bhupesh Bafna: Polyset Group-25%, Blackburn group-25% (including both Pt-I & Pt-II share), Other 4 - 12.5% each Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP- WhatsApp chats between Mr. Alok Somani: Better to call a meeting again 2/ OP-4/ OP-5 proposes Bhupesh Bafna: I have spoken to all. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP- 55. They are not inclined to continue the. revision of share from what 5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Its only the ratio issue otherwise everything is going fine. I personally believe that the pool has been earlier decided in OP-3 & prices will break if we both don't agree with the above formula meeting. Alok Somani: As per Mumbai meeting our percentage share worked out to 37.8% including provisionally approved firm. PPL’s share worked out to 26.7%. While you are willing to let 21.09.2019 go 1.7% of your share you want us to forego 12.8%. Is that logical? You need to rethink Bhupesh Bhupesh Bafna: If we do proper detailed calculation then the breakup should be BBC 29%, PPPL 21%, Calstar 12.50%, JPPL 12.50%, Polymer 12.50%, Quadrant 12.50%, Total 26.09.2019 100% If this is agreeable to you then I will put it up on HPPA group OP-3 informs other parties Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to that South-East Central Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, OP-7, SECR Tender No. 03182030A due on 01.10.19 is allotted to BBC @ Rs. 35.25 basic. Since GST rate of HPPA Bushes has been increased from 5% to 12% w.e.f. 01.10.19, we will Railway tender has been 56. 30.09.2019 Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. quote Rs. 35.25 + GST @12% (Rs. 39.48 all incl.) allocated to it so all other Harsha Gumballi of OP-8, and Mr. All are requested to quote their rates accordingly parties should quote R.K. Singh of OP-10 accordingly.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 54

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation

Ms. Shanta Sohoni asks As per latest discussion, pool will work out on 100% tender value w.e.f. 01/10/2019 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. OP-3 to quote higher rate 57. 30.09.2019 You are requested to quote higher rate in NR tender due 01/10/2019 in part II firm Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 in Northern Railway tender Other tender allocation will be sending by evening as Part II firm Subject: Bush Allotment Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls; Bush AC-4.xls Dear All, Ms. Shanta Sohoni As per discussion had with group members, working will be done on 100% tender value. provides to parties their Ratio for all members are as under w.e.f. 01/10/2019. ratio of allocation w.e.f. Polyset: 21%, BBC: 29%, JPPL: 12.5%, Quadrant: 12.5%, CSL: 12.5%, Polymer: 12.5% Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. 01.10.2019 and asks parties Total: 100% Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. to quote as per Price List Allotment w.e.f. 01/10/2019 is done on the basis of above ratio. 58. 30.09.2019 Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. R.K. Due to withdrawal of Quadrant’s offer against CR tender opened on 17/09/2019 and Rates. She also requests Singh of OP-10, Mr. Harsha discussion had with Dy. CMM, CR, this tender will be retendered in October 19 therefore, parties to quote GST @ 12 we have not accounted this tender in the statement. Gumballi of OP-8, and OP-7 %. Further, as attachment, All are requested to quote as per allocation with new PLR she sends revised Price List Non-allotties should quote minimum 8-10% higher than PLR. Rates and allocation of “AS PER PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY GST COUNCIL, MINISTY OF FINANCE, GST RATE @ 12% WILL BE APPLICABLE FOR CHAPTER 86 OF WAGON, tenders and revised share. COACHES AND ROLLING STOCK ITEMS W.E.F. 01/10/2019” All are requested to quote GST @ 12% for bush tenders. Ms. Shanta Sohoni asks Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: Bush Ac-5.xls OPs to quote decided rates Ram Chandra of OP-6, Mr. R.K. Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls in Eastern Railway tender. 59. 30.09.2019 Singh of OP-10, Mr. Harsha ER tender No. 11191686 due on 04/10/2019 quantity is in 2135 sets (32 Nos. in one set) and She also sends as Gumballi of OP-8, Mr. Tarkeshwar PL rate is Rs. 1,128/- per set + GST @5%. attachment, revised Price All are requested to quote the rate in per set and quote 8% to 10% higher than PLR. Thakur of OP-3, and OP-7 List Rates, and allocation

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 55

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation of tenders and share. Subject: N.F. Railway Tender No. 30190409 due on 09-10-19 for Mfg. & Supply of Brake Gear Bush to RDSO Drg. No. SKETCH-81039, Item -7 Dear All, We shall be quoting the following rates in N.F. Railway Tender No. 30190409 due on 09- 10-2019 Qty- 8291 Nos. OP-6 provides rates to be Consignee QTY Basic rate Freight GST All-inclusive rate Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6 to Ms. 60. 03.10.2019 DBRT quoted for North-East Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 709 No 90/- 30/- 12% 134.40 Workshop Frontier Railway tender. KIRGSD 196 Nos. 90/- 50/- 12% 156.80 NBQ 802 Nos. 90/- 25/- 12% 128.00 Workshop PNO GSD 6584 Nos. 90/- 10/- 12% 112.00 All non-allotties are requested to quote 8-10% higher. Dear Sir, We have clearly mentioned in the email dt. 30/09/2019 that PL rate for ER tender No. 11191686 due on 04/10/2019 quantity is in 2135 sets is Rs. 1,128/- + GST 5% Sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 04.10.2019 As per tabulation statement, you have quoted this tender today morning at 10.28 am and to OP-8 quoted for single pc. Rate and tender is for set of 32 pcs. Ms. Shanta Sohoni informs You are requested to withdraw your offer immediately i.e. today with copy to be sent in the pool. that OP-8 has misquoted in 61. Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to Eastern Railway tender and Mr. Vikas Agarwal and Mr. Ram asks it to withdraw. OP-8 Subject: Re: FW: Bush Ac-5.xls Chandra of OP-6, Mr. Tarkeshwar Attachments: E Rly BGB offer withdrawal.PDF agrees. 04.10.2019 Thakur and Mr. Alok Somani of Dear Sir/ Madam, OP-3, Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, Please find enclosed withdrawal letter. We will submit the same at the earliest. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5, and Mr. Vishal Baid and Mr.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 56

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Venkat of OP-8 Dear Sir, SR Tender No. 04190921A due on 15.11.2019 for 3729 Sets of Brake Gear Bushes is allotted to both BBC (60% of 100% qty) & JPPL (40% of 100% qty) @ Rs. 7,897. 00 per Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 to set basic 11.11.2019 OP-7 So in this tender, we will quote list price i.e. Rs. 7,897.00 per set basic plus GST @12% (Rs. OP-3 and OP-7 decide their 8,844.64 all incl.). 62. rates to be quoted in You are advised to quote Rs. 7,915.00 per set basic plus GST @12% (Rs. 8,864.80 all incl.) Southern Railway Tender Please confirm Dear Sir, Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. Agreed. We will quote Rs. 7,915 + 12% = 8,864.80 all Incl. 11.11.2019 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 Regards Rajesh Nair Ms. Shanta Sohoni states that North Eastern Railway NER Tender No. 22190770 due 29-11-19 is allotted between PPPL & BBC Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. PPPL will quote Rs. 3,190.50 + GST @12% = Rs. 3,573.36 per set all incl. tender is allocated between 63. 26.11.2019 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 3,205/- + GST @12% = Rs. 3,589.60 per set all incl. OP-5 and OP-3 and P1. confirm the same provides prices to be quoted Dear All, OP-8 requests for WE would like to inform that we had quoted North East Frontier tender no WE 30190409 clarification as to why did Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 to opened on 09.10.2019. OP-6 quote higher rates We had quoted Rs. 80.64/- all-inclusive which is 72 basic + 12% GST which is 8.6% more Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5, Mr. 64. 12.12.2019 that the PLR rate which is 66.25/- than decided in North-East Venkata and Mr. Vishnu of OP-8 We have observed that initially the tender was allocated to CSL, but we were L1 as the rates Frontier Railway tender and Mr. Vikas Agarwal of OP-6 quoted by CSL was Rs. 90 + 30 freight + 12% GST (All Incl. 134.40) without any prior We had no prior information about the change in rates to be quoted. We wish to know the information. reason for quoting higher rates….

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 57

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Subject: SCR TENDER NO 30191446 DUE 22-1-2020 provides rate to be quoted Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls for South Central Railway Dear All, 65. 18.01.2020 Harsha Gumballi and Mr. Surya of tender. She also sends as SCR TENDER NO. 30191446 DUE 22-01-2020 Rate of the item should be read as Rs. OP-8, Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, attachment, revised Price 66.25 per pc. instead of Rs. 63/- Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10, and OP-7 All are requested to quote this tender accordingly. List Rates, and allocation of tenders and share. Dear Sir We received information from S. Rly for the below tender and found that BBC is reduced rate of Rs. 400/- per set in the negotiation and entire order is going to BBC. Since we both are allotted in this tender and no information received so far from your side for attending negotiation and reduce rate. All the matters have been settled during pool's last meeting and now it is very shameful matter. How can we run such type of pool? OP-7 expresses anguish at Pl. clarify OP-3’s non-regard to cartel Mr. Rajesh Nair of OP-7 to Mr. Tender Tender Rly Due Dt. Item Rate Value BBC JPPL arrangement with respect to 66. 13.02.2020 Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 and No. Qty Southern Railway tender Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 Kit for HPPA Brake gear which was allocated to bushes for 4 both OP-3 and OP-7. items as per RDSO SK- 81039 Alt. 15. SR 04190921 15/11/2019 Item No. 2 = 3729 7897 29447913 17668748 11779165 120 Nos., Item No. 3 = 76 Nos., Item no. 7 = 32 Nos., Item No.11 = 8 Nos., Bush T-3-2-808 item

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 58

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation No. 3 = 8 Nos.

Thanks & Regards, Rajesh Nair This tender is allotted between PPPL & BBC Ms. Shanta Sohoni Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Polyset will quote Rs. 7,227/- + GST 12% = Rs. 8,094.24 all inclusive 25.02.2020 allocates North Central Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3 BBC will quote Rs. 8,094.24 + GST Nil = Rs. 8,094.24 all inclusive Pl. confirm the same Railway tender between Sir, OP-3 and OP-5 and NCR tender No. 30192378 due on 02/03/2020 for 1037 sets provides prices to be 67. This tender was allotted between Polyset and BBC and we have also informed you that Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. quoted. rates to be quoted for both the firms. And the same was confirmed by you 02.03.2020 Tarkeshwar Thakur and Mr. Alok But you have not quoted the same rate and also quoted lower rates However, she later alleges Somani of OP-3 You are requested to withdraw your offer by giving copies to all pool members that OP-3 has underquoted Regards, and accordingly it should Polyset Plastics Pvt. Ltd withdraw its bid. Though we have informed you that both will quote the same rate Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, how to go about. OP-3 had quoted lower in Alok Somani: Can't help Not in my hands if the officer is taking time to send the draft Northern Railway tender Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, reced call from Quadrant reg. N. Rly. tender where BBC has quoted than decided. So OP-10 lower rate. He said that BBC should withdraw their offer today otherwise they will quote WhatsApp chat between Mr. complained to OP-5. lower rate in the next tender Sir, pl do the needful. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP- Sir, it will be difficult to manage everyone. Mr. Bhupesh Bafna can be 68. 12.05.2020 5 and Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ Alok Somani: You can explain them the background as to why we quoted low seen telling this to Mr. OP-3 Bhupesh Bafna: They don't have an issue that you have quoted in a tender allotted to Alok Somani and asking Polyset. Issue is the prices are low. OP-3 to withdraw. Mr. Sir, with lots of difficulty we have maintained the prices. Somani however, explains Alok Somani: Prices quoted are same at which JPPL took away NR tender which was allotted to us last year as to why OP-3

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 59

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation Bhupesh Bafna: I leave it to you. underquoted because OP-7 In the interest of a Pool it's best the you submit a withdrawal letter. took away its last tender of Between our issue. Northern Railway. We will wait for your draft & do the needful Bhupesh Bafna: Sir, again I'm requesting you. Please submit your withdrawal letter. The rates are 25% lower than our PLR Hi. Hope the letter is fine It can be sent today itself Alok Somani: Not fine I will send you draft Railway officer is drafting the same Will send upon receipt WhatsApp chat between Mr. Bhupesh Bafna: Ok. Sir we will send the letter Don't worry. 14.05.2020 Bhupesh Bafna and Mr. Alok I request you to withdraw you offer letter Somani Sir, again I'm requesting you. Please submit your withdrawal letter. The rates are 25% lower than our PLR rates. It will effect everything. Many pool members are also requesting for the same. Hope you will do the needful Ms. Shanta Sohoni to Mr. Alok Somani and Mr. Tarkeshwar Thakur Ms. Shanta Sohoni sends as of OP-3, Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, Subject: Allotment of Brake gear bushes attachment, revised Price 69. 15.05.2020 OP-7, Mr. Harsha Gumballi and Mr. Attachments: Bush Ac-5.xls List Rates and allocation of Surya of OP-8, and Mr. R..K. Singh tenders. of OP-10 Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 to Mr. Dear All Tarkeshwar Thakur of OP-3, OP-7, It is suggested that we increase our PLR for HPPA Bushes. Ms. Shanta Sohoni Few reasons are as under: 70. 26.05.2020 Mr. Harsha Gumballi and Mr. Surya proposes to increase prices 1. Due to weakening of INR ys U$S and also implication of Import duty. of OP-8, Mr. Ram Chandra of OP-6, of HPPA bushes by 8-10%. 2. Railways are floating tenders now but they need supplies next year. We should cover all and MR. R.K. Singh of OP-10 uncertainties in our prices.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 60

S. No. Date E-mail (To and From) Content of E-mail Observation 3. Increase in expenses % and overheads % due to Covid 19. Therefore, we suggest that we prices should be increased by 8% to 10%. All are requested to send your comments on this suggestion.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 61

46. From the aforesaid detailed evidences, the modus operandi of the cartel operating between the OPs is very clear. The suppliers of HPPA/ SLPR bushes communicated with each other through e-mails or WhatsApp communications from at least April 2016 to May 2020. Ms. Shanta Sohoni was responsible for co-ordination amongst the members of cartel. Usually, an e-mail was circulated from Ms. Shanta Sohoni, an employee of OP-5 (and also on behalf of OP-2 and OP-4) to the other OPs allocating forthcoming tenders in total for the period ahead and also informing and discussing the prices to be quoted. These OPs included OP-3 (including OP-1), OP-6, OP-7, OP-8, OP-9 and OP-10. 47. Ms. Shanta Sohoni kept record of all forthcoming tenders of Indian Railways updated online on Indian Railways E-procurement System (‘IREPS’). She allocated tenders on the basis of allotment value (a decided percentage (%) distribution of tenders) of each member which was maintained similar to an account statement. In this regard, allocation tables were maintained which also mentioned earlier shortage/ excess value and allotted value with net excess.

Therefore, tenders were allocated in compliance to the allotment share. There were also instances where tenders were allocated to more than one member/ vendor/ supplier as agreed. In such cases, members mutually agreed to a price before filing the bid. Ms. Shanta Sohoni communicated the basic price at which allocated vendor should quote in the allotted tender. Thereafter, the vendors communicated the price based on their respective additional taxes and arrived at a mutually agreed price for submitting the bids over e-mails. As a next step, Ms. Shanta Sohoni instructed the members via e-mail that non-allottee vendors should quote prices that are 8-10% higher than basic prices agreed by members. With course of time, various players/ vendors kept on adding to mutually agreed agreement/ pool and share of each member was adjusted accordingly, in order to accommodate new players. 48. Existence of such cartel pool/ arrangement between the OPs was also acknowledged by their various representatives before the DG. Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, in his statement recorded before the DG, admitted that he was approached by other manufacturers to maintain prices and he was a part of cartel.

Mr. Bhupesh Bafna as well as Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-2/ OP-4/ OP-5 also submitted before the DG that an informal market understanding existed amongst the existing approved bidders that they should all have reasonable rate and get reasonable share of overall business to recover

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 62 investments. Mr. Vikas Agarwal of OP-6 in his statement also stated that he was approached by other manufacturers and joined the group of other RDSO approved manufacturers for a limited period up to 20.03.2019 for providing supporting bid quotations. However, he stated that the company did not benefit much from the agreement as it hardly received any orders. In his submission before the DG, Mr. Vishal Baid of OP-7 also admitted that since 2016, authorised persons of OP-7 have been communicating with other manufacturers. He submitted that Mr. Rajeev Dudhani, Consultant/ Advisor for OP-7 was working as a commission/ liaison agent for railways business and he was responsible for marketing and quality control for HPPA Bushes orders. Further, he submitted that Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at OP-7 was the authorised person for filing bids on behalf of OP-7 in tenders floated by Railways for HPPA Bushes. In this regard, Mr. Rajesh R., in his submission, stated that he communicated with other manufacturers of HPPA (and SLPR) Bushes to discuss and finalise bids to be submitted for tenders of Indian Railways.

OP-9, in its submission before the DG, also acknowledged the receipt of e-mails from OP-4. Mr. Luv Kumar of OP-10 also, before the DG, admitted that all the approved vendors in market for supply of HPPA bushes were participating in a cartel. He also admitted to have been part of cartel since 2014. He admitted that there were two physical meetings during 2014- 2020. As per Mr. Luv Kumar, he attended first meeting in 2016 at JW Marriott, Aero city, Delhi, which was called by Polyset Group for discussing market share of each vendor pursuant to inclusion of Black Burn Group in the cartel. Hence, it is observed that more or less, representatives of almost all the OPs (OP-1, OP-2, OP-3, OP-4, OP-5, OP-6, OP-7, OP-8, and OP-10) have admitted to the existence of the abovesaid cartel arrangement with respect to HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes. 49. With respect to OP-9, it is noted that three e-mails dated 11.04.2016, 16.04.2016 and 28.04.2016 were sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni to various OPs including to OP-9 regarding allocation of forthcoming tenders. Allocation tables annexed with such e-mails show distribution of 10% share to OP-9.

OP-9 has not even denied the receipt of such e-mails. In fact, in its submission before the DG, OP-9 has acknowledged that it has received such e-mails. Though in its suggestions/objections to the DG Report, OP-9 has submitted that it stopped manufacturing HPPA bushes/ SLPR bushes and participating in railway tenders from the 2nd half of 2016 and it never replied to such e-

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 63 mails received, the Commission observes that there is nothing on record to show that OP-9 also objected to the sending of such e-mails to it by Ms. Shanta Sohoni. In this backdrop, the Commission finds the pleas urged by OP-9 of little significance and in the opinion of the Commission, the evidences on record establish that OP-9 was also a part of the cartel arrangement amongst the OPs. 50. With respect to OP-11, it is noted that though there seems to be no e-mails/ WhatsApp messages exchanged with OP-11 by the other OPs, however, the IP addresses from which the bids of OP-11 were filed in the railway tenders matched with OP-1. Also, in certain tenders, IP address also matched with OP-3. OP-11 was located in Kolkata as was OP-3. Further, the DG, from analysis of the sales turnover of OP-11, has noted that the annual turnover of OP-11 was negligible; yet the company participated in tenders quoting extremely high prices with rare chance of being allotted the tenders. Also, Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3 in his statement stated that OP-11 started business on his proposal and Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of OP-11 was a family friend. The companies were also sharing employees on the pretext of work experiences etc. Therefore, in the opinion of the Commission, OP-11 was also a part of the cartel arrangement which existed between the other OPs. 51. As far as OP-6 is concerned, it has submitted before the Commission that it was not a member of the association amongst the OPs for a major portion of the period in question and had reservations in forming or participating in this association. However, from the e-mail communications extracted above including several e-mails exchanged between OP-6 and the other OPs, the involvement of OP-6 in the cartel arrangement is well established. 52. Regarding certain pleas raised by OP-8 that it did not form part of the initial reference received in the matter; it had no commonality of IP addresses with other OPs etc., the Commission finds that such arguments made by OP-8 do not help its case. The involvement of OP-8 in the cartel arrangement between the OPs is well established from the e-mail communications extracted above, which include multiple e-mails exchanged by OP-8 with other OPs.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 64

53. Further, it is noted that the OPs have argued that the cartel conduct of the OPs did not lead to any AAEC in the market as there were no entry barriers for new entrants, nor were competitors driven out of the market, nor prices increased for the Indian Railways. 54. In this regard, firstly, the Commission notes that the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act not only proscribe the agreements which cause an AAEC in the market, but also forbid agreements which are likely to cause an AAEC in the market. Secondly, the Commission notes that once an agreement of the types specified under Section 3(3) of the Act is established, the same is presumed to have an AAEC within India. Thus, it is axiomatic to presume in the present matter that the impugned conduct of the parties has caused AAEC within India. 55. No doubt, as per the ratio of the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, 2018 (13) SCALE 493, the presumption of AAEC in a case involving contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act can be rebutted by the parties by placing evidence to the contrary on record, however, it is noted that it is upon the contravening parties to rebut the presumption of AAEC by showing positive effects emanating from the cartel activity like accrual of benefits to the consumers (in the instant case, the Indian Railways), improvement in production or distribution of goods or provision of services, or promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services.

56. In this regard, the relevant excerpts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Rajasthan Cylinders (supra), are as follows: “We may also state at this stage that Section 19 (3) of the Act mentions the factors which are to be examined by the CCI while determining whether an agreement has an appreciable adverse effect on competition under Section 3. However, this inquiry would be needed in those cases which are not covered by clauses (a) to (d) of sub-Section (3) of Section 3. Reason is simple. As already pointed out above, the agreements of nature mentioned in sub-Section (3) are presumed to have an appreciable effect and, therefore, no further exercise is needed by the CCI once a finding is arrived at that a particular agreement fell in any of the aforesaid four categories. We may hasten to add, however, that agreements mentioned in Section 3(3) raise a presumption that such agreements shall have an appreciable adverse effect on competition. It follows, as a fortiori, that the Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 65 presumption is rebuttable as these agreements are not treated as conclusive proof of the fact that it would result in appreciable adverse effect on competition.

What follows is that once the CCI finds that case is covered by one or more of the clauses mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 3, it need not undertake any further enquiry and burden would shift upon such enterprises or persons etc. to rebut the said presumption by leading adequate evidence. In case such an evidence is led, which dispels the presumption, then the CCI shall take into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 19 of the Act and to see as to whether all or any of these factors are established. If the evidence collected by the CCI leads to one or more or all factors mentioned in Section 19 (3), it would again be treated as an agreement which may cause or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect of competition, thereby compelling the CCI to take further remedial action in this behalf as provided under the Act. That, according to us, is the broad scheme when Sections 3 and 19 are to be read in conjunction.” 57. The Commission notes that in the present matter, OP-1 and OP-3 have stated that development of SLPR Bushes by them and entry of OP-11 in the market amounts to improvement in production and distribution thereby rebutting AAEC.

However, in view of the Commission, such development was not contingent upon or in any way linked to collusive arrangement between the OPs but the same would have taken place irrespective of such cartel conduct. As such, in view of the Commission, it can be presumed in the instant matter that the cartel arrangement between the OPs led to an AAEC in the market for HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes within India. The OPs have been unable to show any positive effects emanating from their cartel activity like accrual of benefits to the consumers, improvement in production or distribution of goods or provision of services, or promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services, rather the collusive conduct of the OPs affected fair competition in the market. On a holistic evaluation of the submissions made by the parties and in light of the factors enumerated in Section 19(3) of the Act, the Commission is satisfied that in the present matter, the parties have not been able to dislodge the statutory presumption of AAEC, by adducing cogent evidence to the contrary, as required.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 66

58. Hence, the Commission observes that there was a clear understanding between the OPs w.r.t. determination and revision of prices in regard to tenders floated by Railways for procurement of Brake Gear Bushes, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) of the Act. Further, there were also e-mails exchanged between the OPs where one OP can be seen pressuring another OP to quote only the decided prices and not lower and where OPs can be seen asking other OPs to withdraw their offers. This amounts to an act of controlling supply and market by regulating who and when shall supply the products, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. There was also clear allocation of tenders amongst the OPs qualifying as sharing of market amongst them in terms of percentage with addition and reduction with each tender and in terms of monetary amount as well, wherein the balance sheet was displayed for each player, which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(c) of the Act. However, looking at the modus operandi of the cartel and the evidences available on record, the Commission finds that conclusion of geographical allocation of market amongst the OPs cannot be reached, as concluded by the DG.

Lastly, such modus operandi of the OPs amounts to bid-rigging in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act by eliminating competition and manipulating the bidding process by forming a pool or cartel of vendors, even for developmental vendors (Part II vendors) who were entering into the market and were at the initial phases of manufacturing. 59. Though the OPs have also argued that they were forced to indulge into such pool arrangement and cartel activity due to the market structure, in order to avoid losses and get their fair share of business from the Indian Railways, the Commission is of the opinion that the same does not bestow a right upon the OPs i.e. the suppliers/vendors to collude together and fix prices, allocate quantities, and indulge into the illegal conduct of bid-rigging in violation of the provisions of the Act. Liability under Section 48: 60. Now that contravention of the provisions of the Act by the OPs has been established, the Commission proceeds to determine in the subsequent paragraphs, the role and liability of the respective individuals of the OPs, in terms of Section 48 of the Act.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 67

61. The DG has found the following individuals of the OPs liable in terms of Section 48 of the Act, for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective company: OP Person Liability u/s OP-1 Mr. Alok Somani 48(1) OP-3 Mr. Alok Somani, Director 48(1) and 48(2) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director 48(1) and 48(2) OP-2 Ms. Shanta Sohoni, Employee 48(2) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Partner 48(1) and 48(2) OP-4 Ms. Shanta Sohoni 48(2) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Partner 48(1) and 48(2) OP-5 Ms. Shanta Sohoni 48(2) OP-6 Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director 48(1) and 48(2) Mr. Vishal Baid, Director 48(1) and 48(2) OP-7 Mr. Rajeev Dhudani, Consultant/ Advisor 48(2) Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations 48(2) Mr. Vishnu N.M., Managing Partner 48(1) and 48(2) OP-8 Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partner 48(1) and 48(2) Mr. Harsha Gumballi, Manager (Admin) 48(2) OP-9 Mr. Salimuddin, Managing Partner 48(1) Mr. Luv Kumar, Director 48(1) and 48(2) OP-10 Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing 48(2) OP-11 Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director 48(1) and 48(2) 62. The role and liability of each of them is discussed as follows: (1) Mr. Alok Somani, Partner of Moulded Fibreglass Products and Director of Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 63. The DG has noted that as per the records of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, OP-1 is an LLP which is managed by two partners i.e. Ms. Manjushree Somani and Ms. Tanushree Somani since 11.03.2015. Before the DG, Ms. Manjushree Somani submitted an Affidavit stating that she has no personal knowledge about transactions and business of OP-1 and her husband Mr. Alok Somani is responsible for all the decisions and day to day working of the firm. When confronted with such Affidavit, Mr. Alok Somani also acknowledged the same. Further, the DG has noted that Mr. Alok Somani is also one of the three directors in the private limited company i.e. OP-3.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 68

64. In his statement before the DG, Mr. Alok Somani has admitted that he was approached by other manufacturers of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, to maintain prices and he was a part of the cartel. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs have been sent/ received by Mr. Alok Somani with respect to the cartel arrangement. Certain WhatsApp communications between Mr. Alok Somani and Mr. Bhupesh Bafna with respect to discussions on HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Tenders are also there. 65. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Alok Somani liable in terms of both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-3 as well as OP-1. (2) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and Partner of Power Mould and M/s Anju Techno Industries 66. The DG has noted that Mr. Bhupesh Bafna was one of the three Directors in private limited company i.e. OP-5. Further, the DG has noted that Mr. Bafna is also a partner in partnership firms, namely, OP-2 and OP-4, which Mr. Bafna has stated before the DG are sister entities of OP-5. 67. Mr. Bafna has acknowledged before the DG that an informal market understanding existed amongst the approved bidders of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes that they should all have reasonable rate and get reasonable share of overall business to recover investments.

Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail and WhatsApp communications are on record which show the involvement of Mr. Bhupesh Bafna in the cartel arrangement. 68. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Bhupesh Bafna liable in terms of both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-5 as well as OP-2 and OP-4. (3) Ms. Shanta Sohoni, Employee at Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. 69. The DG has noted that Ms. Shanta Sohoni was an employee at OP-5, who was also working on behalf of OP-2 and OP-4. She was the kingpin of the cartel who allocated forthcoming tenders amongst the OPs and informed them about the prices to be quoted. Ms. Sohoni was responsible for co-ordination amongst the members of the cartel. As Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 69 detailed above, there are several e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs sent/ received by Ms. Shanta Sohoni with respect to the cartel arrangement. 70. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Ms. Shanta Sohoni liable in terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-5. (4) Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director of Calstar Steel Ltd. 71. The DG has noted that Mr. Vikas Agarwal was one of the four Directors of OP-6.

In his statement before the DG, Mr. Agarwal admitted that he was approached by other manufacturers and joined the group of other RDSO approved manufacturers for a limited period up to 20.03.2019 for providing supporting bid quotations. There are also certain e-mail communications on record which have been sent/ received by Mr. Vikas Agarwal to/ from the other OPs. 72. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Vikas Agarwal liable in terms of both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-6. (5) Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 73. The DG has noted that Mr. Vishal Baid was one of the three Directors of the private limited company OP-7. He admitted before the DG that since 2016, authorised persons of OP-7 have been communicating with other manufacturers. From the contents of the e-mail dated 11.09.2019 sent by Ms. Shanta Sohoni to representatives of some other OPs as extracted above, it is noted that in the meeting dated 10.09.2019 held between the OPs at Mumbai in which discussions pertaining to approved vendors and rates to be revised were made, Mr. Vishal Baid was present as the representative of OP-7.

74. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Vishal Baid liable in terms of Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-7. (6) Mr. Rajeev Dhudani, Consultant/ Advisor at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 75. Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of OP-7, has submitted before the DG that Mr. Rajeev Dudhani, Consultant/ Advisor at OP-7, was working as a commission/ liaison agent for railways business and he was responsible for marketing and quality control for HPPA Bushes orders. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs have been sent/ received by Mr. Rajeev Dudhani with respect to the cartel arrangement.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 70

76. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Rajeev Dudhani liable in terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-7. (7) Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 77. Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of OP-7, has submitted before the DG that Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at OP-7, was the authorised person for filing bids on behalf of OP-7 in the tenders floated by the Indian Railways for HPPA Bushes. In his submission before the DG, Mr. Rajesh R. has acknowledged that he used to communicate with other manufacturers of HPPA/ SLPR Bushes to discuss and finalise bids to be submitted for tenders of Indian Railways. As detailed above, several e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs sent/ received by Mr. Rajesh R. show his clear involvement in the cartel arrangement. 78. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Rajesh R. liable in terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-7. (8) Mr. Vishnu N.M., Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd. 79. The DG has noted that Mr. Vishnu N.M., was one of the Managing Partners of partnership firm OP-8. 80. Hence, being in-charge of and responsible to OP-8 for the conduct of its business, which responsibility has not been denied by Mr. Vishnu in his suggestions/ objections to the DG Report, the Commission finds Mr. Vishnu N.M. liable in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-8. (9) Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd. 81. The DG has noted that Mr. Venkata Subramanyam was also one of the Managing Partners of partnership firm OP-8. 82. Hence, being in-charge of and responsible to OP-8 for the conduct of its business, which responsibility has not been denied by Mr. Subramanyam in his suggestions/ objections to the DG Report, the Commission finds Mr. Venkata Subramanyam liable in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-8.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 71 (10) Mr. Harsha Gumballi, Manager (Admin) at Polymer Products of India Ltd. 83. The DG has noted that Mr. Harsha Gumballi was the Manager (Admin) at OP-8. As detailed above, there are several e-mail communications to and fro the other OPs sent/ received by Mr. Harsha Gumballi with respect to the cartel arrangement. 84. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Harsha Gumballi liable in terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-8. (11) Mr. Salimuddin, Managing Partner of M/s Micro Engineers 85. The DG has noted that Mr. Salimuddin was the Managing Partner of OP-9 and he was responsible for the day-to-day activities of the company. He was also aware of the receipt of e-mails from OP-4 with respect to the cartel arrangement. 86. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Salimuddin liable in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-9. (12) Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) 87. The DG has noted that Mr. Luv Kumar was one of the three Directors of OP-10.

He admitted before the DG that all approved vendors in the market for supply of HPPA Bushes were participating in a cartel. He also admitted to have been a part of the cartel. He admitted that there were two physical meetings during 2014-2020 between the OPs, one of which he attended in 2016 at JW Marriott, Aero city, Delhi, which was called by Polyset Group for discussing market share of each vendor pursuant to inclusion of Black Burn Group in the cartel. Further, as detailed above, multiple e-mail communications are on record which have been sent/ received by Mr. Luv Kumar to and fro the other OPs. 88. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. Luv Kumar liable in terms of both Section 48(1) and 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-10. (13) Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing at Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) 89. Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of OP-10, in his submission before the DG, has stated that Mr. R. K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing of OP-10, was responsible for filing of Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 72 bids on behalf of the company.

Mr. R.K Singh also has admitted that he was responsible for filing bids on behalf of company, however, he has contended that the final rates were submitted after discussion with the Directors. There are also multiple e-mail communications on record which have been sent/ received by Mr. R.K. Singh, to and fro the other OPs. 90. Hence, in view of the above, the Commission finds Mr. R.K. Singh liable in terms of Section 48(2) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-10. (14) Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. 91. The DG has noted that Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of OP-11, has been stated by Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1/ OP-3, to be a family friend who had started the business of OP-11 on Mr. Somani’s proposal. 92. Hence, being in-charge of and responsible to OP-11 for the conduct of its business, which responsibility has not been denied by Mr. Tapuriah in his suggestions/ objections to the DG Report, the Commission finds Mr. Shirish Tapuriah liable in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act, for the cartel conduct of OP-11. Conclusion: 93. The Commission, hence, holds OP-1 to OP-11 guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with 3(1) of the Act.

94. As far as individuals’ liability is concerned, the Commission holds the following individuals of the OPs liable under Section 48 of the Act, for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective companies: (i) Mr. Alok Somani, Partner of Moulded Fibreglass Products and Director of Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Mr. Bhupesh Bafna, Director of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and Partner of Power Mould and M/s Anju Techno Industries (iii) Ms. Shanta Sohoni, Employee at Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. (iv) Mr. Vikas Agarwal, Director of Calstar Steel Ltd. (v) Mr. Vishal Baid, Director of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (vi) Mr. Rajeev Dudhani, Consultant/ Advisor at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 73 (vii) Mr. Rajesh R., Senior Manager, Operations at Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (viii) Mr. Vishnu N.M., Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd. (ix) Mr. Venkata Subramanyam, Managing Partner of Polymer Products of India Ltd. (x) Mr. Harsha Gumballi, Manager (Admin) at Polymer Products of India Ltd. (xi) Mr. Salimuddin, Managing Partner of M/s Micro Engineers; (xii) Mr. Luv Kumar, Director of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) (xiii) Mr. R.K. Singh, Assistant Manager, Marketing at Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) (xiv) Mr. Shirish Tapuriah, ex-Director of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. Penalty and lesser penalty: 95. Once contravention of the provisions of the Act has been established, the Commission now proceeds to determine the penalty, if any, to be imposed upon the contravening parties, under the provisions of Section 27(b) of the Act. 96. Under Section 27(b) of the Act, where after inquiry, the Commission finds that any agreement referred to in Section 3, or action of an enterprise in a dominant position is in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Act, as the case may be, it may impose upon each of such persons or enterprises which are parties to such agreements or abuse, such penalty, as it may deem fit, which shall be not more than ten percent of the average of the turnover for the last three preceding financial years. 97. Accordingly, in terms of the said provision, the Commission decides to compute the penalty to be imposed upon the OPs. Considering the nature of the cartel arrangement, the mitigating factors submitted by the OPs, and the fact that several of the OPs are MSMEs, the Commission decides to impose upon the OPs, penalty @5% of the average of their turnover generated from the sale of HPPA Bushes/ SLPR Bushes, for the last three preceding financial years. 98. The same is calculated as under:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 74

Moulded Fibreglass Products (OP-1) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 3,56,70,145 2018–19 3,93,63,598 2019-20 2,27,39,892 Total 9,77,73,635 Average 3,25,91,212 Penalty 16,29,561

Power Mould (OP-2) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 3,74,39,979 2018–19 1,86,63,933 2019-20 1,08,360 Total 5,62,12,272 Average 1,87,37,424 Penalty 9,36,871

Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 4,57,70,758 2018–19 4,32,09,639 2019-20 3,30,62,990 Total 12,20,43,387 Average 4,06,81,129 Penalty 20,34,056

Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. (OP-4) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 8,97,149 2018–19 2,85,120 2019-20 1,84,211 Total 13,66,480 Average 4,55,493 Penalty 22,775

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 75

Anju Techno Industries (OP-5) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 76,55,704 2018–19 3,81,19,042 2019-20 4,40,22,635 Total 8,97,97,381 Average 2,99,32,460 Penalty 14,96,623

Calstar Steel Ltd. (OP-6) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 2,03,16,375 2018–19 1,57,29,968 2019-20 3,32,70,402 Total 6,93,16,745 Average 2,31,05,582 Penalty 11,55,279

Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. (OP-7) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 4,58,37,391 2018–19 1,46,75,515 2019-20 92,16,108 Total 6,97,29,014 Average 2,32,43,005 Penalty 11,62,150

Polymer Products of India Ltd. (OP-8) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 6,93,357 2018–19 40,75,909 2019-20 1,80,98,151 Total 2,28,67,417 Average 76,22,472 Penalty 3,81,124

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 76

M/s Micro Engineers (OP-9) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 - 2018–19 - 2019-20 - Total - Average - Penalty -

Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (Now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) (OP-10) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 1,27,83,494 2018–19 2,42,62,622 2019-20 1,65,80,138 Total 5,36,26,254 Average 1,78,75,418 Penalty 8,93,771

Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. (OP-11) (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TURNOVER 2017–18 - 2018–19 4,35,710 2019-20 - Total 4,35,710 Average 1,45,237 Penalty 7,262 99. Similarly, with regard to the individuals of the OPs found liable in terms of Section 48 of the Act for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective companies/firms, the Commission decides to impose penalty @5% of the average of their incomes, for the last three preceding financial years. The same is calculated as under:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 77

Mr. Alok Somani of OP-1 and OP-3 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 73,16,867 2018–19 84,32,050 2019-20 84,58,423 Total 2,42,07,340 Average 80,69,113 Penalty 4,03,456

Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of OP-2, OP-4 and OP-5 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 2,64,01,175 2018–19 1,78,79,477 2019-20 1,73,41,330 Total 6,16,21,982 Average 2,05,40,661 Penalty 10,27,033

Ms. Shanta Sohoni of OP-5 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 5,65,203 2018–19 4,35,566 2019-20 Not filed Total 10,00,769 Average 5,00,385 Penalty 25,019

Ms. Vikas Agarwal of OP-6 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 47,65,700 2018–19 46,87,591 2019-20 35,09,590 Total 1,29,62,881 Average 43,20,960 Penalty 2,16,048

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 78

Ms. Vishal Baid of OP-7 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 46,44,562 2018–19 80,61,760 2019-20 1,60,98,510 Total 2,88,04,832 Average 96,01,611 Penalty 4,80,081

Ms. Rajiv Dhudani of OP-7 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 45,78,121 2018–19 10,21,789 2019-20 6,98,540 Total 62,98,450 Average 20,99,483 Penalty 1,04,974

Ms. Rajesh R. of OP-7 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 6,88,858 2018–19 5,61,052 2019-20 2,29,620 Total 14,79,530 Average 4,93,177 Penalty 24,659

Mr. Vishnu N.M. of OP-8 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 1,28,04,802 2018–19 2,03,25,886 2019-20 4,40,84,434 Total 7,72,15,122 Average 2,57,38,374 Penalty 12,86,919

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 79

Mr. Venkata Subramanyam of OP-8 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 1,09,44,352 2018–19 1,89,43,577 2019-20 4,16,87,966 Total 7,15,75,895 Average 2,38,58,632 Penalty 11,92,932

Mr. Harsha Gumballi of OP-8 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 4,00,000 2018–19 4,19,200 2019-20 3,81,180 Total 12,00,380 Average 4,00,127 Penalty 20,006

Mr. Salimuddin of OP-9 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 19,85,720 2018–19 15,57,021 2019-20 - Total 35,42,741 Average 11,80,914 Penalty 59,046

Mr. Luv Kumar of OP-10 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 30,28,652 2018–19 68,47,884 2019-20 Not filed Total 98,76,536 Average 49,38,268 Penalty 2,46,913

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 80

Mr. R.K. Singh of OP-10 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 6,19,788 2018–19 6,66,401 2019-20 7,19,670 Total 20,05,859 Average 6,68,620 Penalty 33,431

Mr. Shirish Tapuriah of OP-11 (In ₹) FINANCIAL YEAR INCOME 2017–18 8,86,994 2018–19 10,71,370 2019-20 Not Filed Total 19,58,364 Average 9,79,182 Penalty 48,959 100. Regarding lesser penalty, the Commission notes that though OP-3 was the first lesser penalty applicant to approach the Commission, yet it had approached the Commission as a lesser penalty applicant only after investigation in the matter had been ordered. Having said that, it is noted that full and true disclosures of information and evidence and continuous co-operation provided by OP-3 and its individual enabled in establishing contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act by the OPs, as brought out supra. As such, on a holistic consideration of the matter, the Commission decides to grant to OP-3 and Mr. Alok Somani, 80% reduction in the penalty amount imposed upon them. 101. The second lesser penalty applicant before the Commission was OP-1. The Commission notes that in terms of the disclosures and evidence provided, OP-1 was not able to provide much value addition to the information, material and documents already provided by OP-3 through its lesser penalty application. Nonetheless, full and true disclosures of information and evidence and continuous co-operation provided by OP-1 helped the Commission in establishing contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act by the OPs. As such, the Commission decides to grant to OP-1, 40% reduction in the penalty amount imposed upon it.

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 81

102. The third lesser penalty applicant before the Commission was OP-7. OP-7 has requested lesser penalty for itself and its individuals viz. Mr. Vishal Baid, Mr. Rajeev Dudhani and Mr. Rajesh R. The Commission notes that OP-7 was the third lesser penalty applicant and by the time of its application, the DG already had in its possession, from the lesser penalty applications filed by OP-3 and OP-1, quite a lot of evidence required for establishing a cartel. However, some evidence submitted by OP-7 has been used by the Commission to form a complete trail evidencing anti-competitive conduct of the OPs; therefore, providing value addition to the investigation of the DG. Further, OP-7 has also disclosed to the Commission about existence of another cartel arrangement. Given the stage at which OP-7 came forward with the disclosures, the quality of information provided by OP-7, the evidence already in possession of the DG at that time, and the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, and the factum of disclosure of another cartel by OP-7, the Commission decides to grant to OP-7 and its three individuals, reduction in penalty to the tune of 30% of the total penalty leviable. 103. The last lesser penalty applicant before the Commission was OP-10. OP-10 has requested lesser penalty for itself and its individuals viz. Mr. R.K. Singh and Mr. Luv Kumar. With regard to OP-10 also, it is noted that by the time application from OP-10 was received, the DG already had in its possession, from the lesser penalty applications filed by OP-3, OP-1 and OP-7, most of the evidence on the basis of which cartelisation in the present matter has been established. However, some evidence submitted by OP- 10 has been used by the Commission above to form a complete trail evidencing anti-competitive conduct of the OPs, as such providing value addition to the investigation of the DG. Therefore, given the stage at which OP-10 came forward with the disclosures, the quality of information provided by OP-10, the evidence already in possession of the DG at that time, and the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission decides to grant to OP-10 and its two individuals, reduction in penalty to the tune of 20% of the total penalty leviable. 104. Consequently, the penalty amounts imposed upon and payable by the OPs are as follows:

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 82 (In ₹) Penalty Penalty payable S. No. Name of Party OP Imposed after reduction 1. OP-1 Moulded Fibreglass Products 16,29,561 9,77,737 2. OP-2 Power Mould 9,36,871 9,36,871 3. OP-3 Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 20,34,056 4,06,811 4. OP-4 Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. 22,775 22,775 5. OP-5 M/s Anju Techno Industries 14,96,623 14,96,623 6. OP-6 Calstar Steel Ltd. 11,55,279 11,55,279 7. OP-7 Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 11,62,150 8,13,505 8. OP-8 Polymer Products of India Ltd. 3,81,124 3,81,124 9. OP-9 M/s Micro Engineers Nil Nil Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. 10. OP-10 8,93,771 7,15,017 (now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) 11. OP-11 Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. 7,262 7,262 105. As far as the individuals of the OPs are concerned, the penalty amounts calculated for them and payable by them are as follows: (In ₹) Penalty S. Penalty Name of Party payable after No. Imposed reduction Mr. Alok Somani of Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1. 4,03,456 80,691 and Moulded Fibreglass Products Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of Power Mould, Polyset 2. Plastics Private Ltd. and M/s Anju Techno 10,27,033 10,27,033 Industries 3. Ms. Shanta Sohoni of Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. 25,019 25,019 4. Mr. Vikas Agarwal of Calstar Steel Ltd. 2,16,048 2,16,048 5. Mr. Vishal Baid of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 4,80,081 3,36,057 6. Mr. Rajeev Dhudani of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 1,04,974 73,482 7. Mr. Rajesh R. of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 24,659 17,261 8. Mr. Vishnu N.M. of Polymer Products of India Ltd. 12,86,919 12,86,919 Mr. Venkata Subramanyam of Polymer Products of 9. 11,92,932 11,92,932 India Ltd. Mr. Harsha Gumballi of Polymer Products of India 10. 20,006 20,006 Ltd. 11. Mr. Salimuddin of M/s Micro Engineers 59,046 59,046 Mr. Luv Kumar of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. 12. 3,24,381 2,59,505 (now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.)

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 83

Penalty S. Penalty Name of Party payable after No. Imposed reduction Mr. R.K. Singh of Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. 13. 33,431 26,745 (now MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) 14. Mr. Shirish Tapuriah of Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. 48,959 48,959 106. In view of the above, the Commission passes the following: ORDER 107. OP-1 to OP-11 are found guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)3(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Further, 14 individuals of the OPs are found liable in terms of Section 48 of the Act, for the anti-competitive conduct of their respective entities. 108. The Commission, in terms of Section 27(a) of the Act, directs the parties to cease and desist in future from indulging in any practice/conduct/activity, which has been found in the present order to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, as detailed in the earlier part of this order. 109. Further, under the provisions of Section 27(b) of the Act, the Commission directs the following parties to pay the following amounts of penalty: S. Amount of Name of Party Amount in Words No. Penalty (In ₹) Rupees Nine Lacs Seventy 1. Moulded Fibreglass Products 9,77,737 Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven Only Rupees Nine Lacs Thirty Six 2. Power Mould 9,36,871 Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One Only Rupees Four Lacs Six Thousand 3. Black Burn and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 4,06,811 Eight Hundred and Eleven Only Rupees Twenty Two Thousand 4. Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. 22,775 Seven Hundred and Seventy Five Only Rupees Fourteen Lacs Ninety 5. M/s Anju Techno Industries 14,96,623 Six Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Three Only 6. Calstar Steel Ltd. 11,55,279 Rupees Eleven Lacs Fifty Five

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 84

S. Amount of Name of Party Amount in Words No. Penalty (In ₹) Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Nine Only Rupees Eight Lacs Thirteen 7. Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 8,13,505 Thousand Five Hundred and Five Only Rupees Three Lacs Eighty One 8. Polymer Products of India Ltd. 3,81,124 Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Four Only 9. M/s Micro Engineers Nil Nil Quadrant EPP Surlon India Ltd. (now Rupees Seven Lacs Fifteen 10. 7,15,017 MCAM Surlon India Ltd.) Thousand and Seventeen Only Rupees Seven Thousand Two 11. Skylark Projects Pvt. Ltd. 7,262 Hundred and Sixty Two Only Mr. Alok Somani of Black Burn and Rupees Eighty Thousand Six 12. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Moulded Fibreglass 80,691 Hundred and Ninety One Only Products Mr. Bhupesh Bafna of Power Mould, Rupees Ten Lacs Twenty Seven 13. Polyset Plastics Private Ltd. and M/s 10,27,033 Thousand and Thirty Three Anju Techno Industries Only Ms. Shanta Sohoni of Polyset Plastics Rupees Twenty Five Thousand 14. 25,019 Private Ltd. and Nineteen Only Rupees Two Lacs Sixteen 15. Mr. Vikas Agarwal of Calstar Steel Ltd. 2,16,048 Thousand and Forty Eight Only Rupees Three Lacs Thirty Six 16. Mr. Vishal Baid of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 3,36,057 Thousand and Fifty Seven Only Rupees Seventy Three Mr. Rajeev Dhudani of Jai Polypan Pvt. 17. 73,482 Thousand Four Hundred and Ltd. Eighty Two Only Rupees Seventeen Thousand 18. Mr. Rajesh R. of Jai Polypan Pvt. Ltd. 17,261 Two Hundred and Sixty One Only Rupees Twelve Lacs Eighty Six Mr. Vishnu N.M. of Polymer Products 19. 12,86,919 Thousand Nine Hundred and of India Ltd. Nineteen Only Rupees Eleven Lacs Ninety Mr. Venkata Subramanyam of Polymer 20. 11,92,932 Two Thousand Nine Hundred Products of India Ltd. and Thirty Two Only Mr. Harsha Gumballi of Polymer Rupees Twenty Thousand and 21. 20,006 Products of India Ltd. Six Only

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 85

S. Amount of Name of Party Amount in Words No. Penalty (In ₹) Rupees Fifty Nine Thousand 22. Mr. Salimuddin of M/s Micro Engineers 59,046 and Forty Six Only Mr. Luv Kumar of Quadrant EPP Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Nine 23. Surlon India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon 2,59,505 Thousand Five Hundred and India Ltd.) Five Only Mr. R.K. Singh of Quadrant EPP Surlon Rupees Twenty Six Thousand 24. India Ltd. (now MCAM Surlon India 26,745 Seven Hundred and Forty Five Ltd.) Only Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Mr. Shirish Tapuriah of Skylark 25. 48,959 Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine Projects Pvt. Ltd. Only 110. The parties mentioned in the table above are directed to deposit their respective penalty amounts within 60 days of the receipt of the present order. 111. It is made clear that all information used in the present order is for the purposes of the Act and as such, in terms of Section 57 of the Act, does not qualify for grant of confidential treatment. 112. The Secretary is directed to forward certified copy of the present order to the parties through their respective legal counsel, accordingly.

Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Gupta) Chairperson

Sd/- (Sangeeta Verma) Member

Sd/- New Delhi (Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi) Date: 04.04.2022 Member

Reference Case No. 03 of 2018 86