Milling agent for Odisha Govt. abused dominance by not reimbursing charges and imposing unfair conditions to rice mills

Case Details: Maa Metakani Rice Industries v. State of Odisha - [2021] 132 taxmann.com 94 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairman
  • Ms. Sangeeta Verma and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi, Member
  • Prabhu Prasanna Behera, Abhishek Choudhary, Advs., Puneet Jhunjhunwala, Rahul Tyagi, Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Advs. and Ms. Jigyan Mishra, Manager (Law) for the Appearing Parties.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the informant was engaged in the business of rice (paddy) milling, production of rice etc and sale thereof to act as custom milling agent of OP-2 for said purpose. The Informant, on the other hand, had entered into an agreement with OP-2 for custom milling of paddy for Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2015-16.

The OP-2’s stock lying at the informant’s premises was damaged due to flood. After completion of KMS 2015-16, the informant approached OP several times for releasing its custom milling dues.

However, the informant was informed by OP-2 that since claims concerning loss at the informant’s premises had not been settled by an insurance company, the amount had been withheld. Thus, Informant filed information alleging that OP-2 had abused its dominant position by delaying paying its legitimate dues and it was forced to enter into an agreement with OP-2 for custom milling for KMS 2018-19.

CCI Held

The conduct of OP-2 by not timely disclosing charges for KMS, not properly reimbursing charge incurred by millers in providing services since last several years, unilaterally reducing rates of some services, and imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions on the purchase of service from the informant was true, abuse of its dominant position as per provisions of section 4 of the Act.

However, taking into consideration that certain measures, as regards online billing management system (OBMS) to facilitate quick processing and settlement of bill of custom millers had been implemented by OP-2, it was viewed that a desist order under section 27 would subserve ends of justice in the matter.