New Delhi, September 16, 2025 — India’s National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld a 2022 order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) fining nine entities, including appellants M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal and M/s Siddhi Vinayak & Sons, for bid-rigging soil-testing tenders issued by Uttar Pradesh’s Agriculture Department.
In April 2022, the CCI imposed penalties on nine companies and five associated individuals for colluding in the 2017 and 2018 tenders for soil testing work issued by various divisions of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The agency found that M/s Yash Solutions, having no prior experience in soil testing work, was awarded tenders in the Bareilly and Moradabad divisions in the year 2017 and Moradabad and Aligarh Divisions in the year 2018.
An appeal by Yash Solutions challenging the CCI order was dismissed by the NCLAT in August last year.
NCLAT’s principal bench comprising Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan and Member Indevar Pandey found “overwhelming” evidence of collusion with Yash Solutions, including common IP addresses used to file e-bids, fake experience certificates and invoices, and the use of Yash employees as authorised signatories for rival bids. These activities showed that the appellants submitted cover bids to prop up Yash Solutions’ tenders, the Tribunal said.
The bench noted admissions by proprietor Satish Kumar Agarwal that his firms lacked soil-testing infrastructure and filed separate bids “to create an appearance of competition,” and that both firms were blacklisted by the procurer for document irregularities.
Furthermore, the tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s Rajasthan Cylinders ruling, reiterating that cartel conduct can be established on a probability basis using circumstantial evidence when direct agreements are not available.
Addressing penalty methodology, the appellants invoked Excel Crop Care to argue for a “relevant turnover” base that, given their lack of sales in the soil-testing line, would yield a nil penalty. The NCLAT rejected a narrow reading that would let first-time or non-winning cartel participants “walk free,” endorsing the CCI’s use of total turnover in these facts.
However, recognising the appellants’ supporting role (cover bidding rather than winning), the tribunal reduced the penalty rate to 3% of average turnover for FY2017-18 to FY2019-20 under Section 27(b), down from the CCI’s 5%. The court pointed to its own precedent in M/s Toyfort (Suo Motu Case No. 1 of 2020), where a similar reduction was granted to a cover bidder; the Supreme Court later dismissed an appeal in that matter.
The tribunal also affirmed individual responsibility under Section 48, noting that Satish Kumar Agarwal controlled both proprietorships and directed the impugned conduct. As the entities are sole proprietorships, no separate additional penalty was imposed on the proprietors.
The case is Competition Appeal (AT) No. 39 of 2022, M/s Satish Kumar Agarwal & Ors v CCI before the NCLAT.
