The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, held that price parallelism does not, by itself, amount to a concerted practice and will not be sufficient to conclude bid rigging. It may, however, provide a strong evidence of such a practice.

The Court set aside orders of CCI and then Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), which had held 45 suppliers of LPG Cylinders guilty of bid rigging in violation of S. 3(3)(d) of Competition Act.

SC observed:

• The prevailing conditions ruled out possibility of price variations and all the manufacturers were forced to submit bids with a price quite close to each other.
• The control over tender process was maintained by IOCL & not by manufactures collusively.
• Since, not many manufacturers are needed on regular basis; IOCL ensures that technically viable bids get some order. This is why all 50 parties obtained order along with 12 new entrants.
• The conclusion of CCI that appellants ensured that there should not be a new entrant may not be correct.
• There was no sufficient evidence to hold that there was any agreement between the appellants for bid rigging.

For more: https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/3644/3644_2014_Judgement_01-Oct-2018.pdf