King, Stubb & Kasiva | View firm profile
New Delhi, July 13th 2026: In a significant outcome for its client Thoughtsol Infotech Private Limited, King Stubb & Kasiva has secured a complete exoneration before the Competition Commission of India (the Commission), in a matter in which the Commission has penalised HP India Sales Private Limited ₹126.87 crore and penalised five other resellers.
The proceedings arose out of Suo Moto Case No. 07 of 2020, initiated on a leniency application filed by HP India itself, alleging cartelisation between the OEM and its resellers in tenders floated on the Government e-Marketplace platform. The Director General returned findings of contravention against HP India and all ten of its resellers, including Thoughtsol.
The position confronting the client was a difficult one. HP India had admitted the cartel in its leniency disclosures, in which Thoughtsol stood implicated. The defence advanced on Thoughtsol’s behalf was that no agreement had been made out at all, as there was no consensus ad idem between the parties, and that the Director General had inferred concerted action from unilateral communications without examining what Thoughtsol had done in response to them.
By its order dated 13 July 2026, a bench comprising Chairperson Ms. Ravneet Kaur and Members Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Sweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag accepted the submissions and held that Thoughtsol had quoted its prices independent of HP India, and that no case of contravention was established against it.
The order carries wider significance. The Commission rejected the vertical relationship defence run by almost every reseller in the matter, holding that once an OEM and its reseller both bid in the same tender, they step into the shoes of competitors. For OEM channel partners across the public procurement sector, routine transfer price and authorisation correspondence now falls to be assessed on an entirely different footing.
Statement from the Legal Team
“The Commission’s findings confirm what we argued throughout, which is that an inference of collusion cannot be drawn from correspondence alone. What a party does with a communication matter far more than the fact that it received one. Our client priced its bids independently, and the record bore that out.”
Appearances
Senior Counsel Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar appeared on behalf of Thoughtsol Infotech Private Limited and successfully advanced the case before the Commission.
The matter was led and strategically handled by Aniket Ghosh, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, along Sarthak Miglani from the firm’s Competition Law team.