1. The Commission has received the present information from M/s Manappuram Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Informant") on 30.03.2011 under the provisions of Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The information relates to the alleged anti-competitive agreement and abuse of dominant position by the members and office bearers of Kerala Gold & Silver Dealers Association (hereinafter referred to as "the Opposite Parties") in gold and silver jewellery business in Thrissur district of Kerala.

2. As per the information, followings are the brief facts of the case:

2.1 The informant is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of gold and silver jewellery in India. The Opposite Party No. 1, Kerala Gold & Silver Dealers Association (hereinafter referred to as "KGSDA"), is an unregistered association of gold and silver jewellery shop owners in the State of Kerala. The Opposite Party No. 2 to Opposite Party No. 6 are some of the members of KGSDA.

2.2 The informant has submitted that it has been engaged in the gold and silver jewellery business in the state of Kerala since a long period of time and has good business reputation amongst the customers in the market in Kerala as well as in other parts of the country. Because of its long experience and large economies of scale, compared to other gold and silver jewellery shop owners operating in Kerala, it is able to take less manufacturing/making charges for ornaments from the customers. Further, with a view to give more benefits to the customers it has been paying a substantial proportion of VAT to the government on behalf of the customers which is supposed to be paid by the customers while making purchases from it. The informant has been paying 4% VAT to the Government for each transaction but it has been collecting only 1% VAT from the customers and the remaining 3% VAT has been paid by the informant out of its own fund. The informant has also submitted that it sells only 916 Hall marked gold Jewellery with BIS certification to the customers and gives special offers/schemes on different occasions with a view to give benefits to the customers.

2.3 As per the informant, because of its long experience in the gold and silver jewellery business, large consumer base and successful business operation in the state of Kerala it never became a member of KGSDA. It has been alleged by the informant that since it did not become a member of KGSDA, the members of KGSDA have been indulging in various anti-competitive trade practices against it with a view to ruin its business reputation and to reduce its market competitiveness. The members of KGSDA had been putting up stickers, boards/notices, banners in their shops to the effect that they would not be buying/accepting the gold jewellery purchased from the informant as the gold sold by the informant was of inferior quality. Such notices in the form of stickers, boards and banners were kept at places near the cash counter of their showrooms with an ulterior motive to give a negative publicity to the consumers about the informant. The members of KGSDA were also spreading other negative rumours about the informant with a view to tarnish its market reputation and to erode its consumer base. As per the informant the above said activities of the members of KGSDA were anti-competitive as per the provisions of the Act.

2.4 The informant has also alleged that KGSDA had been prescribing/fixing the prices of gold and silver jewellery for its members and compelling/forcing its members to buy/sell gold and silver jewellery at the price prescribed by it which was nothing but fixation of sale and purchase price of gold and silver jewellery. KGSDA has made mandatory for all its members to adhere the prices fixed by it for buying/selling of gold and silver jewellery even though, the individual jewellers might charge less price from the customers.

2.5 It has been stated by