New Delhi, January 7, 2026 — India’s National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal by Klassy Enterprises and upheld the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) finding of bid rigging in a public tender issued by the Pune Zilla Parishad for the supply of Picofall-cum-sewing machines.
The tribunal affirmed the CCI’s March 17, 2021, order, which found Klassy Enterprises and two other bidders liable for collusive bidding under Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI had imposed a penalty of INR 1,000,000 [approximately $11,089] on Klassy Enterprises and the other two bidders.
Bid-Rigging Findings
The case arose from a tender floated on November 7, 2015, by the Pune Zilla Parishad for procurement of sewing machines intended for distribution to beneficiaries in the rural Pune district under a state social welfare scheme.
Investigators and the CCI relied on multiple indicators of coordination, including closely aligned pricing and shared tender submission infrastructure. The three bidders’ unit prices were separated by less than INR 30, with the CCI and tribunal finding such proximity unlikely in ordinary market conditions absent coordination.
The record also showed the bids were submitted using a common IP address linked to Klassy Enterprises’ cyber café. The investigation further traced the payment of tender fees and earnest money deposits to funds arranged by Klassy Enterprises, with refunds for unsuccessful bidders later credited back to Klassy Enterprises.
Call data records were also cited as supporting evidence, reflecting frequent and lengthy calls among the bidders immediately before bid submission.
Defense Rejected
Klassy Enterprises argued that it operated a cyber café and tender-filing service and that other bidders were regular clients, making shared infrastructure and payment assistance plausible. It also pointed to post-bid price reductions during negotiations as inconsistent with cartel behavior.
The tribunal rejected these explanations, finding the combined circumstantial and financial evidence sufficient to establish a “meeting of minds” and a coordinated scheme to submit cover bids. It also held that once conduct falls under Section 3(3), a presumption of appreciable adverse effect applies, shifting the burden to the parties to rebut it.
Penalty Maintained
On penalty, the tribunal backed the CCI’s approach, noting the authority’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Excel Crop Care framework and its use of relevant turnover tied to sewing machine sales for the period. The tribunal held that the INR 1,000,000 penalty was proportionate given the conduct and the revenue associated with the relevant line of business.
The appeal was dismissed and the CCI order affirmed with no costs.
The case is Competition Appeal (AT) No. 33 of 2022, Klassy Enterprises vs CCI, before National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
Source: https://nclat.nic.in/display-board/view_order
