Title: The Case of Collusive Bidding and Bid rigging of tenders

Characters:
Judge (Harsha)
Lawyer for the Informant (Shubhank)
Lawyer for Opposite Parties (Aniket)
Representative for the Informant (Tanishq)
Representative for Opposite Parties (Manohar)
Witness 1 for the Informant (Amarjot)
Witness 2 for the Informant (Pranab)
Witness 3 for the Informant (Mohit)
Witness 1 for the Opposite Parties (Aishwariya)
Witness 2 for the Opposite Parties (Jhon)
Witness 3 for the Opposite Parties (Krishni)

[SCENE 1]

Judge: [Entering the courtroom and taking a seat at the bench] Good morning
everyone. Today we will hear the case of the Informant versus JB Chemicals India
Ltd, A Industries Limited, UP Alkalis and Chemicals Limited, and Babaria
Chemicals and Industries Limited. [Addressing the lawyers] Please introduce
yourselves and your clients.
Lawyer for Informant: [Standing up] Good morning your Honor. My name is
[Name] and I represent the Informant, a statutory body constituted under the
Bengaluru Water Board Act, 1998.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: [Standing up] Good morning your Honor. My
name is [Name] and I represent the Opposite Parties, consisting of JB Chemicals
India Ltd, A Industries Limited, UP Alkalis and Chemicals Limited, and Babaria
Chemicals and Industries Limited.
Judge: Thank you. [Addressing the witnesses] Please take your places in the
witness stand. [The witnesses from both parties take their places.]
Lawyer for Informant: [Addressing the witness from the Informant's side] Can
you please state your name and occupation for the record?
Representative for the Informant: My name is [Name] and I am an officer in the
Bengaluru Water Board.
Lawyer for Informant: Can you tell us about the procurement process for Poly
Aluminium Chloride (PAC) used in water purification by the Bengaluru Water
Board?
Representative for the Informant: Sure. We procure PAC through a tendering
process, and the Opposite Parties have been one of the suppliers.
Lawyer for Informant: Have you noticed any irregularities in the procurement
process with regards to the Opposite Parties?
Representative for the Informant: Yes, we have filed two cases against the
Opposite Parties alleging that they were bidding collusively by quoting similar
prices with a difference of INR 200-400 for certain quantity of PAC from the year
2006-07, till the year 2012. This has made it difficult for us to get a fair price for
the PAC we need to purchase.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: [Addressing the witness from the Opposite Parties
side] Can you please state your name and occupation for the record?
Representative for Opposite Parties: My name is [Name] and I am the
representative from the JB Chemicals India Ltd, A Industries Limited, UP Alkalis
and Chemicals Limited, and Babaria Chemicals and Industries Limited.
Judge: Do you all the things about the case?
Representative for Opposite Parties: yes your honor
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: [Addressing the witness from the Opposite Parties]
Do you agree with the allegations made by the Informant?
Representative for Opposite Parties: No, we do not. We have always followed
the rules and regulations set forth in the tendering process, and have never engaged
in any collusive behavior. Even though we check that no one shouldn’t do any type
of malpractices and should not engage in any unfair trade practices. Previously
your honor this case is with the CCI they also get to know that our companies is
not involved in the collusive bidding behavior.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: [Addressing the judge] Your Honor, we would like
to present evidence to support our claim. [The Opposite Parties' lawyer presents the
evidence.]
Judge: [Reviewing the evidence] Thank you for presenting your evidence.
[Addressing the lawyers] Does either side have any further witnesses to call?

[SCENE 2]

Lawyer for Informant: Yes, we have one more witness to call. [The Informant's
lawyer calls the second witness to the stand.]
Witness 1 for the Informant: [Taking the stand] My name is [Name] and I am an
official at the Bengaluru Water Board.
Lawyer for Informant: Can you tell us about the negotiations that took place
between the Informant and the Opposite Parties during the procurement process for
PAC?
Witness 1 for the Informant: Yes, we noticed that the Opposite Parties used to
negotiate or decrease the prices to an equal extent during the bidding process. We
found it suspicious and felt that they were colluding to manipulate the prices.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: [Cross-examining the witness] Did you have any
concrete evidence to prove that the Opposite Parties were colluding?
Witness 1 for the Informant: No, we did not have any concrete evidence, but we
noticed that the prices quoted by the Opposite Parties were almost identical, which
raised our suspicion.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: Your Honor, the prosecution is merely speculating
and does not have any concrete evidence to prove that our clients were colluding.
Judge: Thank you for your testimony. [to lawyer of informant] Do you have any
other witnesses to call?
Lawyer for Informant: yes your honor
Witness 2 for the Informant: Your Honor, I am an employee of The Informant
and was responsible for overseeing the tendering process. I can testify that the
Opposite Parties always quoted similar prices with a minimal difference for the
relevant quantity of PAC.
Lawyer for Informant: Do you believe that the Opposite Parties were colluding
in the bidding process?
Witness 2 for the Informant: Based on the evidence that we have, it seems likely
that there was some level of collusion among the Opposite Parties. The fact that
their prices were so similar for such a long period of time is highly suspicious.

Lawyer for Opposite Parties: Your Honor, I also have witness to call
Judge: proceed
Witness 1 for the Opposite Parties: Your Honor, I am a representative of JB
Chemicals India Ltd. and I can assure you that we have never colluded with other
parties to manipulate the bidding process. Our prices were competitive and based
on our production costs.
Judge: Procicution do have something
Lawyer for Informant: yes your honor
Witness 3 for the Informant: [Taking the stand] My name is [Name] and I am an
official at the Bengaluru Water Board.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: "Witness 3, isn't it true that your company, the
Informant, had the option to reject the bids if they believed the prices were not
fair?"
Witness 3 for the Informant: "Yes, but the Opposite Parties had already colluded
to fix the prices, which made the tender process unfair."
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: "Witness 3, isn't it also true that the Opposite
Parties had to compete with other bidders to win the tender?"
Witness 3 for the Informant: "Yes, but the Opposite Parties were allegedly
colluding with each other to ensure that they all received a fair share of the
tenders."
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: "Witness 3, how do you know that the Opposite
Parties were colluding?"
Witness 3 for the Informant: "I was present at the meetings where the prices were
negotiated, and I heard the Opposite Parties agreeing to fix the prices."
Defense lawyer: thank you honor: Once I would like to call my 2 witness here.

Judge: proced
Witness 2 for the Opposite Parties: Your Honor, I am a representative of UP
Alkalis and Chemicals Limited and I can assure you that we have always been
transparent in our dealings with The Informant. We have never colluded with other
parties to manipulate the bidding process and tendering process for PAC for the
past five years.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: Can you tell us about your experience with the
Opposite Parties during the tendering process?
Witness 2 for the Opposite Parties: Yes, I have found that the Opposite Parties
have always been professional and have submitted competitive bids. I have never
noticed any collusion or anti-competitive behavior.

[SCENE 3]

Lawyer for Informant: your honor I would like to call 3 witness from the
opposite party to the court.
Judge: proceed

Lawyer for Informant: "Witness 3, do you have any evidence that your company
did not engage in collusive bidding?"
Witness 3 for the Opposite Parties: "Yes, we had to compete with other bidders
to win the tenders, and we offered the best prices we could."
Lawyer for Informant: "Witness 3, how do you explain the similarity in prices
quoted by the Opposite Parties?"
Witness 3 for the Opposite Parties: "It was a coincidence, and we did not collude
with anyone to fix the prices."
Lawyer for Informant: "Witness 3, did you witness any communication or
meetings between your company and the Opposite Parties?"
Witness 3 for the Opposite Parties: "No, I did not. We conducted our business
independently and did not collude with anyone."

Lawyer for Informant: Your Honor, based on the testimonies of the witnesses
and the analysis provided by our economic expert, it is clear that the Opposite
Parties were colluding and manipulating the bidding process to inflate the prices of
PAC. We request that the court find them guilty and impose appropriate penalties.
Lawyer for Opposite Parties: Your Honor, the allegations made by The
Informant are baseless and without merit. Our clients have always followed fair
and ethical business practices and we request the court to dismiss the case.

Judge: "Thank you, both sides, for your arguments. After careful consideration of
the evidence and testimony presented, I find the Opposite Parties guilty of
collusive bidding and violation of fair competition laws. The tender process is
meant to be fair and transparent, and any attempt to undermine it will not be
tolerated. The Opposite Parties will be fined and required to take measures to
prevent future violations. We impose a penalty of INR 10 lakhs on each of the
Opposite Parties and order them to cease all collusive activities in the future. Or
informant and defenders can settle their issue outside the court by mutual. This
moot court is adjourned."

(Everyone stands as the judge exits the courtroom.)