UNDER SECTION 26(6) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

The instant information was filed by M/s Rohit Medical Store through its Proprietor (hereinafter referred to as Informant) on 25.02.2010 under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s Aashish Enterprises, Arnbala Cantt, M/s. Novartis India Limited, Parwanoo, M/s. Novartis India Limited, Bhiwadi, M/s. Himachal Pradesh State Chemist & Druggists Association, Shimia and M/s. Bilaspur Chemist & Druggists Association, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No. 1,2, 3, 4 & 5 respectively).

2. The facts, in brief, as stated in the information are as under:

2.1 The Informant is the proprietor of M/s. Rohit Medical Store and is carrying on business as Chemist & Druggist. The Opposite Party No. 1 is the dealer/consignee agent of Opposite Party No.2 and 3 i.e. Novartis India Limited. Opposite Party No. 4 & 5 are the associations of the Chemist & Druggists at the state and district level respectively.

2.2 The Informant has alleged that it had been appointed as the dealer of Novartis India Limited through Opposite Party No.1 in the District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh with effect from July'2009. There were already five stockiest/dealer in the State and the Informant had been appointed as the 6th stockiest by the Opposite Party No. 1.

2.3 The Informant alleged that its appointment as stockiest/dealer of Opposite Party No. 1 for the District Bilaspur was not liked by the party No. 4 and therefore, it pressurized Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 to cancel the dealership of Informant forthwith. Yielding to such pressure from Opposite Party No. 4 & 5, Novartis India Limited stopped the supply of medicine to the Informant in the month of September, 2009.

2.4 It has been alleged by the Informant that the Opposite Party No. 4 & 5 are deliberately interfering in the business of the Informant with the party No. 1. Further, because of pressure exerted by Opposite Party No.4 and 5, Opposite Party No. 1 is demanding from Informant a No Objection Certificate ('NOC') issued by Opposite Party No. 4, regarding the appointment of Informant as additional stockiest. As per the Informant, there is no legal requirement of submitting any No Objection Certificate to the Opposite Party No. 1 but because of the cartel formed by the Opposite Party No. 1 to 5, the Opposite Party No. 1 is asking the NOC on behest of Opposite Party No. 4 & 5.

3. The Commission considered the matter in its meeting dated 03.05.2010, and having formed an opinion under Section 26(1) of the Act that there exists a prima facie case, referred the matter to the Director General (DG) for investigation vide order dated 03.05.2010.

4. During the pendency of the investigation report, the Informant filed an application before the Commission for the withdrawal of the information on the ground that the matter had already been settled by the Informant and Novartis India Limited. The Commission vide its order dated 03.09.2010 rejected the above application of the Informant on the ground that there is no provision of withdrawal of the information under the Act.

5. The DG, after receiving the directions from the Commission, got the matter investigated and submitted his report dated 02.11.2010 to the Commission.

6. During investigation, the replies from the parties were called by the DG. The gist of the replies filed by the opposite parties before the DG is as under:

6.1 The Opposite Party No.1 submitted before DG that it has not stopped the supply of drugs and pharmaceuticals to the Informant. The supply of medicines was disrupted for a temporary period due to certain logistic issues. Further, it was also submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the Informant had cancelled its earlier order and placed a fresh order with the opposite party No. 2 on 11.06.2010 and the Opposite Party No. 2 in turn had raised its invoice and the supply to the Informant was resumed. The Opposite Party No. 2 has also submitted that