Cartelisation amongst HP India and its resellers in the sale and supply of Supplies Products in India · Suo Moto Case No. 08 of 2020
CCI competition order Suo Moto Case No. 08 of 2020 · 13 Jul 2026
CCI competition order Suo Moto Case No. 08 of 2020 · 13 Jul 2026
Summary
Check the official recordThe Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigated a hub-and-spoke cartel involving HP India Sales Private Limited and 16 resellers regarding the supply of ink and toner cartridges to government departments via the Government e Marketplace (GeM). The investigation found that HP India facilitated bid rigging, price fixation, and customer allocation by selectively issuing Manufacturer’s Authorisation Forms (MAF) to ensure incumbent resellers retained 'Most Valuable Customer' (MVC) accounts. The Commission held the parties liable for contravening Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. Contravening parties must cease anti-competitive practices, pay imposed penalties within 60 days, and conduct competition compliance training. The Commission also ordered the submission of a compliance report within 60 days.
What you must do
Key dates
Who is affected
Thresholds
Exceptions
If you do not comply
Suo Moto C. No. 08 of 2020 Page 1 of 114
Suo Moto Case No. 08 of 2020
In Re: Cartelisation amongst HP India and its resellers in the sale and supply of Supplies Products in India
Against:
HP India Sales Private Limited Tower D, Third Floor, Building No. 2, Cyber Green, DLF Phase – III, Gurugram, Haryana. Opposite Party No. 1
DD Enterprises A-99, Jhandewalan Flatted Factory Complex, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi – 110055. Opposite Party No. 2
Ascent Information Systems (P) Ltd. C-27, Jhandewalan, Flatted Factory Complex, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi – 110055. Opposite Party No. 3
Kaypee Enterprises D-19, Jhandewalan, Flatted Factory Complex, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi – 110055. Opposite Party No. 4
Britex Enterprises D-19, Jhandewalan, Flatted Factory Complex, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi – 110055. Opposite Party No. 5
Public Version Suo Moto C. No. 08 of 2020 Page 2 of 114
Alankar Distributors 301, Hanuman, Shiv Mandir Complex, Behind Palika Place Annexe, Near R.K Ashram Marg Metro Station, New Delhi – 110001. Opposite Party No. 6
Vijay Stationary Mart 301, Hanuman, Shiv Mandir Complex, Behind Palika Place Annexe, Near R.K Ashram Marg Metro Station, New Delhi – 110001. Opposite Party No. 7
G R enterprises 4A, Vikrant Enclave, Maya Puri, Mayapuri S.O., South west Delhi, Delhi – 110064. Opposite Party No. 8
Perfect Innovative Computers (P) Ltd. G-8/31, Indira Deep Building, Wazirpur, Commerical Complex, New Delhi – 110052. Opposite Party No. 9
Khandelwal Traders WZ-1626, Near Delhi Cantt. Railway Station Nangal Raya New Delhi – 110046. Opposite Party No. 10
A Square Technologies WZ-1626, Near Delhi Cantt. Railway Station Nangal Raya New Delhi – 110046. Opposite Party No. 11
Innovative Solutions WZ-1626, Near Delhi Cantt. Railway Station Nangal Raya New Delhi – 110046. Opposite Party No. 12
Public Version Suo Moto C. No. 08 of 2020 Page 3 of 114
Pioneer Technologies 202, Patel House, B-11, Ranjeet Nagar Commercial Complex, New Delhi – 110008. Opposite Party No. 13
Delphi Infosolutions P Ltd. M D- 41 Eldeco Mansionz, Sohna Road, Sector – 48, Village- Fajilpur Jharsa, Islampur(97), Gurgaon, Haryana – 122018. Opposite Party No. 14
Shakti Marketing Associates D-6, 6130/6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070. Opposite Party No. 15
International Computer Resources C-61, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024. Opposite Party No. 16
Arms Peripherals 361, Agarwal Chamber Chamber – III, 26, Veer Savarkar Block, Shakarpur, Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110092. Opposite Party No. 17
CORAM Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson
Mr. Anil Agrawal Member
Public Version Suo Moto C. No. 08 of 2020 Page 4 of 114
Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag Member
Appearances during the hearings:
For OP-1 and its 15 individuals: Mr. Karan S. Chandhiok, Advocate; Ms. Modulika Bose, Advocate; Mr. Uday Bali, Advocate; Mr. Shourya Mitra, Advocate; Ms. Riddhika Dumane, Advocate; Mr. Rajeev Nair, General Counsel, HP India; Ms. Niyati Ojha, Legal Counsel, HP India
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, individual of OP-1: Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Dhirender Singh Bisht, Advocate; Mr. Gagandeep Singh, in-person
Mr. Rahul Jindal, individual of OP-1: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate; Ms. Sagrika Tanwar, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Grover, individual of OP-1: Mr. Manoj Grover, in-person
For OP-2 to OP-13: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocate; Mr. G R Bhatia, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Nair, Advocate; Mr. Arjun Nihal Singh, Advocate; Mr. Manav Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Akash Kumar, Advocate; Ms. Saniya Khanna, Advocate
For OP-14 and its individual: Mr. Arjun Krishnan, Advocate; Mr. Ankur Singh, Advocate; Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Advocate; Mr Ajay Chawla, Director of OP-14
For OP-15: Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate; Mr. D.S. Rajpoot, Proprietor of OP-15
For OP-16 and its individuals: Mr. Kaushal Kumar Singh, Advocate; Ms. Kokila Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Vidur Mohan, Advocate; Ms. Prachi Batra, Advocate
Public Version Suo Moto C. No. 08 of 2020 Page 5 of 114
For OP-17: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Advocate; Ms. Muskan Narang, Advocate
Order under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002
The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst HP India Sales Private Limited (‘HP India’/‘OP-1’) and its resellers viz. DD Enterprises (‘OP-2’), Ascent Information Systems (P) Ltd. (‘OP-3’/‘Ascent’), Kaypee Enterprises (‘OP-4’/ ‘Kaypee’), Britex Enterprises (‘OP-5’), Alankar Distributors (‘OP-6’), Vijay Stationary Mart (‘OP-7’/ ‘VSM’), G R Enterprises(‘OP-8’), Perfect Innovative Computers (P) Ltd. (‘OP-9’/ ‘Perfect Innovative’), Khandelwal Traders(‘OP-10’), A Square Technologies (‘OP-11’), Innovative Solutions (‘OP-12’), Pioneer Technologies (‘OP-13’), Delphi Infosolutions (P) Ltd (‘OP-14’/ ‘Delphi’), Shakti Marketing Associates (‘OP-15’/ ‘Shakti Marketing’), International Computer Resources (‘OP-16’/ ‘ICR’) and Arms Peripherals (‘OP-17’) in the sale and supply of HP India Supplies Products, comprising of ink and toner cartridges and other consumables such as graphic and digital manufacturing supplies that are used with print hardware products (‘HP Supplies Products’), to the commercial and consumer customers in India. OP-2 to OP-17 are referred to as reseller OP(s) for ease of reference.
This case is one among the two cases which originated on the basis of an application received by the Commission under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) read with the erstwhile Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (‘LPR, 2009’), from HP India. Based upon the same, the Commission, forming an opinion that a prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act is made out, passed an order on 17.11.2020 under Section 26 (1) of the Act and directed the Director General (‘DG’) to cause an investigation into the matter with respect to all tenders floated on the Government
Public Version Suo Moto C. No. 08 of 2020 Page 6 of 114
e Marketplace (‘GeM’) platform by the procurers in Delhi for HP Supplies Products, the value of which exceeds INR ₹20 lakhs. During the pendency of investigation before the DG, Mr. Manoj Grover, a former official of HP India had also approached the Commission by filing an application under the provisions of Section 46 of the Act read with erstwhile LPR 2009.
The DG, after detailed investigation, had submitted its report in confidential and non-confidential version, on 06.03.2023 along with the case records.
The Commission considered the same in its ordinary meeting held on 15.11.2023 and inter alia, noted that the individuals identified by the DG were not segregated, as to who all were being made liable under erstwhile Section 48(1) of the Act and who all fell under erstwhile Section 48(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission referred the matter back to the DG in terms of Section 26(3A) of the Act for submitting a supplementary investigation report.
In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of the Commission, the DG carried out the supplementary investigation and submitted a supplementary (consolidated) investigation report (‘Investigation Report’), in confidential and non-confidential versions, along with case records, on 21.02.2024.
During investigation, the DG found evidence of collusion among the OPs in respect of various GeM tenders of Government departments including 29 tenders meeting the twin criterion of value more than INR 20 Lakhs floated on GeM for Delhi region. During investigation, the DG confronted the key officials with tender documents, emails, video clippings of meeting(s) organised by HP India, WhatsApp chats from two WhatsApp groups namely: “Delhi Gem Group Chat” formed by a reseller and Gem Tender Group formed by one of the HP India officials for coordination/ discussion on bids/ GeM tenders of various Government departments and recorded their respective statements. Based on evidence collected during investigation in the form of statements, emails, WhatsApp communication and video clippings of a