LANDMARK CASE

Excel Crop Care v. Competition Commission of India

(2017) 8 SCC 47 · Supreme Court of India · Competition law

At a glance

Citation: (2017) 8 SCC 47
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Competition law
In one line: On relevant turnover, the turnover from the product involved.

1 Facts

Companies were penalised for bid rigging in supplying a pesticide to FCI.

2 Issue

Should penalties be on total turnover or relevant turnover?

3 What the court decided

On relevant turnover, the turnover from the product involved.

4 Why it matters

Important for competition penalties.

5 Think about it

Why is relevant turnover fairer?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Competition law

Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India (2010) 10 SCC 744

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.