Gajam Private Limited, is company duly registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Bangalore. It is mainly engaged in manufacturing of automobile and allie

The facts of the case are similar to that of M/s. Rh Agro Private Limited vs State Bank Of India And Others. The information was filed by M/s R.H. Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized Director under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('Act') against State Bank of India ('SBI'/ 'OP-1'), M/s Patanjali Ayurveda ('Patanjali'/ 'OP-2'), M/s International Trader ('International Trader'/ 'OP-3') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Act. The Informant is engaged in Basmati Manufacturing and was availing cash credit limit. During 2012-13, there was a huge crisis in the export business of basmati rice. In the event of such financial crisis, the Informant attempted to convince the banks to sell its one unit, but the bank officials did not accpe this request. AfterwardsM/s RH Agro was declared NPA. Later, the Informant received a notice issued by the SBI wherein it was stated that an e-auction was going to be held in respect of the mortgaged property of the Informant. The auction was held on and the Informant sought information on the e-auction. The bank replied that there were two bidders who participated in the auction and that assets of the Informant had been sold to the highest bidder. The Informant prayed to the Commission to take up the matter and order appropriate actions as per the provisions of the Act against the officials of State Bank of India for abusing their dominant position and denying market access to the other players by rigging the biding process in connivance with the highest bidder. Commission directed bank to file their reply. Bank in its reply raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the present information as account of the Informant was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and the proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act') were initiated. Bank made a number of other submissions as well. The Competition Commission of India in passing its order made the following important findings - Regarding jurisdiction of the Commission, it was observed that in respect of matters falling within the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, the Commission's jurisdiction is never ousted. A bank acting as per the remedies available to it under the SARFAESI Act for recovery cannot be termed as a dominant entity when it acts in accordance with provision thereof as it is acting in recovery of its funds/money in order to mitigate losses in such transaction (where account has been declared NPA). It is also noted that auction of primary security by a secured debtor for realization of funds cannot be said to be a transaction done in ordinary course of business. The sale of security of an account declared NPA is a remedy available to a secured creditor under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The Competition Commission of India opined that no competition concern can be said to have arisen in the present matter and the information is closed forthwith against the OPs under Section 26(2) of the Act. Based on the facts of the above case, in the present matter - based on the limited information provided, it does not appear that Bank Officials have violated the provisions of Competition Act, 2002 as they have initiated action as per remedy provided to them under SARFAESI Act.