Competition Commission of India Closes Case No. 23 of 2023

Case Name:

Case No. 23 of 2023 - Shri. Nadie Jauhri vs. Lupin Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.

Key Takeaways:

1. The Informant’s allegations were not substantiated by evidence on record.
2. The Commission closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Act.
3. Grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act was rejected.
4. The matter was directed to be closed forthwith.

Case Synopsis:

The Competition Commission of India under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. The order pertains to Case No. 23 of 2023, involving an Information filed by Shri. Nadie Jauhri, the Informant, against Lupin Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., referred to as Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, respectively.

The order is signed by the Chairperson, Ms. Ravneet Kaur, and the Members of the Commission. It outlines the allegations made by the Informant, the facts and allegations as per the Information, and the Commission’s observations and decision regarding the allegations.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points in the order:

1. Allegations by the Informant:

• The Informant alleged that Lupin refused to supply its products to Indira Medical Agencies, Nashik, in violation of The Drug (Price Control) Order, 2013.
• The Informant also alleged that the terms and rules drafted by Lupin create conditions that do not allow for effective market growth and healthy competition.
• Additionally, the Informant raised allegations of expired goods/misbranding against Lupin.
• Regarding Dr. Reddy’s, the Informant alleged that the company did not implement the agreement for the appointment of a stockist and turned down the recommendation of appointing Indira Medical Agencies as a stockist.

2. Commission’s Observations:

• The Commission noted that the evidence provided by the Informant did not substantiate the allegations of contravention of the provisions of the Act by Lupin.
• It was observed that the Informant did not provide evidence of non-implementation of the agreement between Shah Agencies and Dr. Reddy’s or non-supply of drugs to Shah Agencies.
• The Commission also noted that the evidence provided by the Informant, such as internal communications, did not substantiate the allegations against Dr. Reddy’s.

3. Decision of the Commission:

• The Commission, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, concluded that the allegations raised by the Informant were not substantiated by any evidence on record.
• As a result, the Commission directed the matter to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act and rejected the grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act.

In conclusion, the Commission’s order states that no case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation into the matter is made out, and the matter is directed to be closed forthwith.

FAQ:

Q1: What was the outcome of the case?

A1: The case was closed by the Competition Commission of India under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, as the allegations raised by the Informant were not substantiated by any evidence on record.

Q2: What were the allegations made by the Informant?

A2: The Informant alleged that Lupin refused to supply its products to a specific medical agency and raised concerns about the terms and rules drafted by Lupin. Additionally, allegations were made against Dr. Reddy’s regarding the implementation of an agreement for the appointment of a stockist.

Q3: What action did the Commission take?

A3: The Commission reviewed the evidence provided by the Informant and concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. As a result, the case was closed, and the grant of relief as sought under Section 33 of the Act was rejected.