CCI competition order Case No. 07 of 2026 · 02 Jul 2026
Official title
Adv. Aditya Tripathi and another Vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and others
Summary
Check the official recordThe Competition Commission of India has closed the case filed by Adv. Aditya Tripathi and Adv. Arun Gaur against Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and 15 procuring entities. The informants alleged that public tender specifications for institutional furniture were manipulated to favor OP-1, constituting abuse of dominance under Section 4 and anti-competitive agreements under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Upon examination, the Commission determined that OP-1 is not dominant in the relevant market of 'supply of Institutional Furniture in India'. Furthermore, the Commission found no evidence of collusion, bid rigging, or anti-competitive agreements between OP-1 and the procuring entities. Consequently, the Commission rejected the request for interim relief and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Key dates
Who is affected
If you do not comply
Case No. 07 of 2026 Page 1 of 11
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 07 of 2026
In Re:
Adv. Aditya Tripathi Chamber No. 118B, Block B, Distt. Courts, Gurgaon, Haryana. Informant No. 1 Adv. Arun Gaur Chamber No. 118B, Block B, Distt. Courts, Gurgaon, Haryana. Informant No. 2 And
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai – 400 079. Opposite Party-1/OP-1 National Building Construction Corporation Limited NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Opposite Party-2/OP-2 HII Infra Tech Services HLL Infra Tech Services Ltd. B – 14A, Sector – 62, Noida – 201 307. Opposite Party-3/OP-3 RITES Limited Scope Minar, Core – 1, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. Opposite Party-4/OP-4 Public Works Department (Delhi) 12th Floor, M.S.O. Building, I. P. State, New Delhi – 110 002. Opposite Party-5/OP-5 National Projects Construction Corporation Limited Raja House, 30 – 31, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 Opposite Party-6/OP-6
Case No. 07 of 2026 Page 2 of 11
Airports Authority of India Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110 003 Opposite Party-7/OP-7 National Thermal Power Corporation NTPC Bhawan, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 Opposite Party-8/OP-8 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110 001 Opposite Party-9/OP-9 Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Opposite Party-10/OP-10 Indian Oil Corporation Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Opposite Party-11/OP-11 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Opposite Party-12/OP-12 Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi – 110 049 Opposite Party-13/OP-13 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Bharat Bhavan, 4 and 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Opposite Party-14/OP-14 Water and Power Consultancy Services (WAPCOS) 5th Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001 Opposite Party-15/OP-15 Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi – 110 016 Opposite Party-16/OP-16
Case No. 07 of 2026 Page 3 of 11
CORAM:
Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal Member
Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Case No. 07 of 2026 Page 4 of 11
The Informants have alleged systemic manipulation of the public procurement process in the institutional furniture market, leading to the foreclosure of competition and denial of market access to OP-1’s rival manufacturers.
It is further stated that public tender documents issued by procuring entities contain technical specifications, line drawings, and photographs that are exact replications of OP- 1’s proprietary product catalogue. Informants have further stated that instead of drafting neutral and functional specifications as required for open competitive bidding, procuring entities have tailor-made the tenders to match OP-1’s specific design parameters. It is stated that as noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Excel Corp Care Ltd. vs. CCI (2017) 8 SCC 47, the process for bidding covers every stage from the Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’) to the award and by rigging the NIT specifications, the process is manipulated ab initio.
It is stated that the Market Intelligence (‘MIS’) analysis (annexed in the Information) covering the period from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024, confirms that this rigged process has resulted in appreciable adverse effect on competition (‘AAEC’). It is further stated that econometric review of tender outcomes in the furniture sector for the calendar year 2024 shows that OP-1 maintains a high success rate and its primary competitors face systematic exclusion. OP-1 participated in 201 tenders valued at Rs. 1072.81 crores and was awarded 88 contracts (apprx. 43.7% win rate) with a total awarded value of Rs. 301.02 crores and in contrast, competitors were systematically excluded. For instance, competitors like Life Care System and Warsi Medico System participated in 17 tenders each but achieved zero (0) wins and major players like Methodex Systems won only 1 tender out of 32 participations (3.13% win ratio).
In another analysis for calendar year 2023, the Informants have stated that OP-1 captured 98.9 percent of the total awarded value. It is stated that the scale of OP-1’s bidding footprint is revealed by its ‘lost value’. Even in instances where OP-1 did not secure the award, it participated in 71 tenders valued at Rs. 139.49 crores. This bidding volume alone exceeds the total participation value of the vast majority of its rivals.
The Informants have stated that the statistical variance indicates a significant win-gap that cannot be explained by standard competitive efficiency. This lack of effective
Case No. 07 of 2026 Page 5 of 11
competition likely results in higher procurement costs paid by public funds, directly harming the consumer/taxpayer interest. The Informants have stated that intervention by the Commission is essential to investigate whether these outcomes result from ‘closed door’ agreements or institutional bias, thereby restoring competition to the furniture sector.
The Informants have delineated the relevant market as the “Public Procurement of Furniture in India”.
It is alleged that OP-1, by influencing tender terms, has effectively denied market access to all other furniture manufacturers who cannot legally produce goods matching OP-1’s proprietary photographs/specifications thereby contravening the provision under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
It is further alleged that the condition that goods must match specific brand imagery imposes an unfair condition on the purchase of goods in a public market thereby contravening the provision under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. As per the judgement in Coal India Ltd. vs. CCI (2023) 8 SCC 470, even statuary or public bodies must comply with competition norms and cannot impose unfair and one-sided conditions.
It is further alleged that the collusion between OP-1 and the officials of OP-2, to utilize specific brand specs constitutes an agreement to limit competition which creates an entry barrier and drives existing competitors out of the market. Further the collusion between OP-1 and OP-2 constitutes bid rigging and a refusal to deal violating Section 3(3)(d) and Section 3(4) of the Act.
Interim Relief:
