New Delhi, Oct 13 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to entertain Asian Paints Ltd’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s order that upheld the Competition Commission of India (CCI)’s decision to investigate the company for alleged abuse of its dominant position in the decorative paints market.
The company subsequently sought and was granted permission to withdraw its petition.
A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter.
Appearing for Asian Paints, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NK Kaul contended that the CCI had not provided the company an opportunity for an oral or written hearing before forming its prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, regarding alleged anti-competitive conduct.
However, the Bombay High Court, in its September 11 order, had held that the CCI’s order at this stage was administrative in nature, and therefore, no inherent right to a hearing exists under Section 26(1).
Rohatgi further argued that the CCI was barred under Section 26(2A) of the Act, as the fresh complaint filed by Grasim Industries Ltd (Aditya Birla Group) was substantially similar to an earlier one filed by JSW Paints, which the CCI had dismissed in 2022.
“The allegations are almost the same, only the language differs slightly. Earlier, it was JSW alleging that Asian Paints threatened dealers to stop dealing with them; now, it’s Grasim making the same claim,” Rohatgi submitted.
He maintained that the earlier case had already been investigated for two years and that reopening the issue would amount to harassment.
Responding to the submissions, Justice Bishnoi observed that Section 26(2A) applies only when more than one complaint is filed on the same or substantially similar facts, and that the CCI must determine whether this threshold is met.
Kaul added that Asian Paints’ market reputation and public perception were being unfairly damaged by repeated investigations based on overlapping allegations.
Justice Maheshwari also noted that Section 26 does not mandate a prior hearing before the CCI forms its prima facie opinion.
With these observations, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s ruling and permitted Asian Paints to withdraw its petition.
The CCI’s probe, initiated on a complaint by Grasim Industries, alleges that Asian Paints engaged in discriminatory and exclusionary practices, including threatening dealers, denying market access, and imposing exclusive dealing arrangements in the decorative paints sector.
