Competition | October 2025 – March 2026
Enforcement Matters
Supreme Court and Kerala High Court affirm CCI’s jurisdiction to investigate Jio Star for alleged abuse of dominance while dealing with the overlapping jurisdiction of TRAI
While examining the interplay between the Competition Act, and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) Act, 1997 (“TRAI Act“), on 3 December 2025, a division bench of the Kerala High Court (“KHC“) dismissed an appeal filed by Jio Star India Private Limited (“Jio Star“) and upheld the CCI’s order that directed the Director General (“DG”) to investigate abuse of dominance allegations raised by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited (“Asianet“).
The dispute before the CCI stemmed from allegations that Jio Star, to the exclusion of Asianet, was inter-alia granting Kerala Communicators Cable Limited (“KCCL“) and competing Multi System Operators (“MSOs“) discounts and other preferential commercial terms under the guise of marketing agreements. In this regard, it was also alleged that these practices were in contravention of certain TRAI regulations and resulted in substantial subscriber migration and elevated operating costs.
While rejecting Jio Star’s averments that (a) contested the CCI’s jurisdiction because the subject matter of Asianet’s suit fell within the regulatory domain of TRAI; and (b) in keeping with an earlier Supreme Court decision (CCI v. Bharti Airtel), the CCI should examine the competition law issues related to Jio Star’s alleged anti-competitive practices only after the technical issues were decided by TRAI, the KHC reasoned that the subject matter of the said dispute before the CCI predominantly pertained to the conduct perpetuated through the marketing arrangements, which TRAI does not regulate, thereby falling within the independent jurisdiction of the CCI.
In this regard, the KHC also emphasised that the Competition Act was not only a sui generis piece of legislation that was designed to deal with the subject matter of fair competition but was also capable of operating parallel to sectoral statutes, consequently concluding that the CCI’s jurisdiction to examine abuse of dominance allegations remains unaffected by TRAI’s regulatory domain.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court, dismissed the appeal filed by Jio Star and upheld the judgment of KHC, thereby permitting the investigation initiated by the CCI to continue. Notably in this regard, it was also observed that a direction to investigate is merely a prima facie administrative step, with all jurisdictional and substantive issues to be determined after the DG’s investigation.
Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT order in Flipkart case, remands the matter for fresh review
The Supreme Court set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (“NCLAT“) 2020 direction to investigate Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. (“Flipkart“) for alleged abuse of dominance and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Notably, this case originated from a 2015 complaint filed by the All India Online Vendors Association alleging practices such as deep discounting, predatory pricing, and preferential treatment of select sellers.
While the CCI had closed the case in 2018 for lack of evidence, the NCLAT overturned this decision in 2020 relying, in part, on findings from income tax proceedings that suggested below-cost sales and structural linkages within Flipkart’s operations. The Supreme Court held that since those underlying tax findings were subsequently set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the evidentiary basis of the NCLAT’s order no longer survived. Accordingly, it directed the NCLAT to re-evaluate the matter, without relying on the invalidated tax proceedings.
NCLAT substantially upholds the CCI’s findings against WhatsApp and Meta while striking down data sharing prohibitions
The NCLAT has substantially upheld the 2024 CCI abuse of dominance findings against Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta”) and WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp”). Notably the CCI had in addition to a monetary penalty inter alia issued directions that (a) precluded Meta from sharing WhatsApp user data with other Meta companies or products for advertising for a duration of five years; (b) mandated Meta to provide its users with a detailed explanation of the nature, type and purpose of data being collected and shared; (c) required Meta to remove any conditions that made access to WhatsApp subject to allowing data collected on WhatsApp to be shared with other Meta companies or products; (d) required Meta to provide its users, who previously accepted the 2021 privacy policy with the option to be able to opt-in and opt-out; and (e) required Meta to provide its users with the ability to review and modify their choice qua sharing of data. (a detailed summary of the facts, allegations and remedies ordered by the CCI is available here)
The NCLAT while affirming the CCI’s conclusions that WhatsApp abused its dominance by imposing unfair, coercive, and discriminatory conditions on users, further noted that abusive conduct relating to the use of data can be reviewed by the CCI, even if there is an overlap with the scope of data protection laws, since the Indian competition regime deals with anticompetitive effects on markets which does not fall withing the scope of the data protection laws.
With respect to the remedy relating to the five-year restriction on intra-group data sharing, the NCLAT while setting aside this remedy observed that (i) once user‑choice and opt‑out remedies restore user autonomy (including for non‑essential uses such as advertising), the additional exclusive five‑year ban may not be necessary; and (ii) a complete ban could disrupt Meta’s business model. Further, in this regard it may be noted on 15 December 2025, the NCLAT also clarified that the directions related to privacy and consent related safeguard remedies would extend to all non-WhatsApp purposes, including display advertising.
Further, the Supreme Court has admitted appeals filed by Meta and WhatsApp against the NCLAT’s judgment concerning WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy. The Supreme Court, while admitting the appeals, permitted impleadment of the Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and directed amendment of the cause title. It also noted that the penalty amount had already been deposited and ordered that it shall not be withdrawn pending further proceedings, leaving key issues at the intersection of competition law and data practices to be adjudicated.
NCLAT affirms CCI’s lack of jurisdiction over patent-related disputes involving compulsory licensing
On 30 October 2025, the NCLAT while dismissing the appeal, re-affirmed the Delhi High Court judgment in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI and the Supreme Court judgment in CCI v. Monsanto Holdings Private Limited & Ors, ruling that the CCI has no jurisdiction over disputes arising from the exercise of patent rights. Further noting that issues relating to compulsory licensing, access and pricing of patented drugs must be addressed exclusively under the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act“) framework.
Notably, in this case the appellant had alleged that the patent holder, Vifor International AG’s licensing arrangements with Emcure Pharmaceutical Limited and Lupin Limited inter-alia restricted market access and inflated prices of Ferric Carboxymaltose injections. Upholding the CCI’s closure of the case, the NCLAT held that the Patents Act is a special and self-contained legislation governing compulsory licensing and alleged abuse of patent rights.
The tribunal emphasized that Section 3(5) of the Competition Act preserves patentees’ rights to impose reasonable conditions for protecting their intellectual property, while Chapter XVI (16) of the Patents Act provides a complete mechanism to address unreasonable licensing terms through compulsory licensing provisions. Consequently, the NCLAT ruled that issues relating to the exercise of patent rights fall exclusively under the Patents Act and that the Competition Act cannot override those provisions.
CCI penalises Intel for discriminatory warranty policy impacting parallel imports
By its order dated 12 February 2026, the CCI held that Intel Corporation (“Intel“) abused its dominant position in the market for boxed microprocessors for desktop personal computers (“PCs“) in India and imposed a penalty of INR 273.80 million (~USD 2.9 million), along with directions to publicise withdrawal of its impugned warranty policy.
The case concerned Intel’s 2016 India-specific warranty policy, which restricted in-country warranty services only to products purchased from authorised Indian distributors, effectively excluding valid products sourced through international authorised channels. The CCI found Intel dominant based on its sustained high market share, technological advantages, and significant entry barriers. On merits, it held that the policy was unfair and discriminatory, particularly as similar restrictions were not imposed in other jurisdictions and rejected Intel’s justification relating to counterfeiting.
The policy was also found to limit consumer choice by compelling purchases through authorised domestic channels at higher prices and to foreclose parallel imports by disadvantaging independent importers, thereby denying them market access. Although Intel withdrew the policy in April 2024, the CCI imposed a penalty considering the prolonged duration of the conduct, while treating the withdrawal as a mitigating factor.
CCI finds Maharashtra liquor trade associations guilty of cartelisation but refrains from imposing monetary penalty
On 11 December 2025, the CCI found the Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association, Pune District Wine Merchants Association, and the Association of Progressive Liquor Vendors (collectively “Liquor Associations”) in violation of various provisions of the Competition Act that dealt with anti-competitive agreements.
In the course of its investigation the CCI inter-alia found that the Liquor Associations were influencing pricing, margins, discounts, payment terms, transportation charges, and other commercial terms that ought to be independently determined between the liquor vendors and the Alcobev Companies. Further, the CCI also found that the Liquor Associations imposed mandatory requirements on Alcobev Companies to obtain NOCs prior to launching new products, ultimately concluding that such conduct resulted in anticompetitive price determinations and limitations on production and supply in the market.
Notably in this case, while the CCI did find contraventions, it refrained from imposing monetary penalties on the erring parties, on account of mitigating factors such as discontinuation of the impugned practices, the Liquor Associations being first-time offenders, and that penalties would adversely affect the financial viability of the Liquor Associations and would lead to the discontinuation of various welfare-oriented activities undertaken by these associations for the benefit of small and vulnerable liquor retailers.
Instead, the CCI issued cease-and-desist directions and cautioned that any future violations would be treated as recidivism with aggravated consequences.
CCI reiterates its stance that in case of cover bidding penalty will be calculated on the basis of global turnover
After remand from the NCLAT on 10 November 2025, the CCI while reaffirming the existence of a cartel across seven tenders issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation (“PMC”) between 2013 and 2015 for the design, supply, installation, commissioning, operation and maintenance of municipal solid waste processing plants, passed a detailed order relating to the quantum of penalty imposed on the erring parties.
While addressing the issues relating to penalty computation, for entities that did not win the tenders, the CCI held that using “relevant turnover” (in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Excel Crop case) as the threshold for penalty calculation would be not be correct. This is because these entities were only cover bidders with no turnover in the relevant market i.e., solid waste management market in the present instance, and this approach would potentially result in zero or disproportionately low penalties. Consequently, the CCI applied the “global turnover” standard while imposing penalties on the erring parties.
Notably while coming to its findings the CCI took cognisance of the repeated nature of the conduct (i.e., rigging seven tenders over two years through a coordinated cover-bidding network) and also rejected pleas of the opposite parties inter-alia relating to bona fide intentions, ignorance of law, or first-time offence. Consequently, imposing penalties at the rate of 10% of average global turnover of the relevant entities. That said, certain reductions to the penalty imposed were granted in accordance with earlier determinations made by the CCI on leniency applications filed by the erring parties at the time of the original investigation.
Delhi High Court affirms that interest on CCI-imposed penalties cannot accrue during subsistence of appellate stay, valid demand notice is a mandatory precondition
On 1 November 2025, a division bench of the DHC, in two rulings, clarified the limits of the CCI’s power to levy interest on monetary penalties. Across both matters, the court held that interest does not accrue automatically or retrospectively and can arise only in strict compliance with the Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011 (now replaced by the 2025 Regulations).
In United India Insurance Company Limited v. CCI, the DHC held that a demand notice under Regulation 3 of The Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011 (now replaced by the 2025 Regulations) received after the grant of an appellate stay is inoperative because the stay renders the underlying penalty order unenforceable. As a result, there is no “penalty recoverable” on the date of receipt, and such a notice cannot trigger liability to pay interest.
In CCI v. Geep Industries & Others, the court reiterated that a validly issued and duly served demand notice under Regulation 3 of the Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011 (now replaced by the 2025 Regulations) is a statutory precondition for interest to accrue. Interest cannot run from the date of the original penalty order, and the CCI cannot invoke restitution principles to impose liabilities not contemplated by the statute. The court further clarified that upon appellate modification or while a judicial stay subsists, no interest can be levied because the original order merges into the appellate decision. Notably on appeal Supreme court dismissed the CCI’s appeal in the said matter and upheld the DHC’s ruling.
Collectively, the rulings underscore that the CCI’s power to recover interest is procedural, sequential, and contingent: it arises only after (a) issuance and service of a valid demand notice; (b) expiry of the period stipulated in that notice; and (c) absence of any operative stay. Allowing interest to run during the stay period, would defeat the very purpose of interim relief and impose an unjust burden on the parties.
CCI upholds effects-based approach, clears BookMyShow of abuse of dominance charges
By its order dated 12 March 2026, the CCI closed abuse of dominance proceedings against Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (“BookMyShow”), despite affirming its dominant position in the market for online intermediation services for movie ticket booking in India. The case, initiated by rival platform Showtyme, alleged exclusionary conduct including exclusivity agreements, discriminatory data and revenue sharing, seat inventory reservation, and financial arrangements creating lock-ins.
While the DG found these practices abusive, the CCI rejected this conclusion, emphasizing that liability arises only where conduct leads to demonstrable anti-competitive effects. It held that (a) seat reservation was operationally necessary to prevent double-booking, particularly in smaller cities lacking real-time integration; (b) differential treatment between multiplexes and single-screen cinemas was justified due to material differences in scale, infrastructure, and bargaining power; and (c) advance deposits and exclusivity clauses were commercially rational and proportionate, without causing market foreclosure.
The presence of competing platforms and low switching barriers further weakened claims of denial of market access. The CCI also clarified that online and offline ticketing markets are distinct, and that discrimination under competition law applies only among similarly placed entities. Reinforcing an effects-based approach, the CCI concluded that BookMyShow’s practices were supported by legitimate business justifications and did not contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act.
CCI rejects claims that airline cancellation policies were anticompetitive, while also commencing an abuse of dominance investigation against Indigo in a separate matter
By its order dated 11 March 2026, the CCI closed allegations of anti-competitive conduct and abuse of dominance concerning high airline ticket cancellation charges. The informant claimed that Interglobe Aviation Limited (“IndiGo“) and Air India Limited (“Air India“), together holding a substantial share of the domestic aviation market, imposed excessive and discriminatory cancellation fees. However, the CCI found no evidence of any agreement or concerted practice between the airlines, reiterating that mere similarity in pricing does not establish collusion under the provisions relating to anti-competitive agreement under the Competition Act.
It also rejected the abuse of dominance claim, noting that the Competition Act does not recognise collective or duopolistic dominance. The CCI further observed that airlines offer different fare categories with clearly disclosed refund and cancellation terms applied uniformly, and that refund variations depend on fare type and timing rather than discriminatory conduct. Importantly, it held that issues relating to fairness of contractual terms fall outside its jurisdiction. Concluding that no prima facie case was made out under the provisions of the Competition Act, the CCI closed the matter.
Separately, in a different case, the CCI by its order dated 4 February 2026 has directed the DG to investigate alleged abuse of dominance by IndiGo in the market for domestic air passenger transport services in India. The case arose from complaints that IndiGo undertook large-scale flight cancellations in December 2025, affecting a significant number of passengers, and subsequently offered seats on the same routes at sharply increased fares.
At the prima facie stage, the CCI found IndiGo to be dominant, with a market share of around 60–61% and extensive network coverage. It held that sudden cancellations without adequate alternatives may amount to imposition of unfair conditions, while the withdrawal of capacity during peak demand could indicate restriction of services by creating artificial scarcity, in violation of the provisions relating to abuse of dominance under the Competition Act.
Rejecting IndiGo’s jurisdictional challenge, the CCI clarified that the presence of a sectoral regulator like the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (“DGCA“) does not exclude competition law scrutiny, particularly as airfares are not economically regulated by the DGCA. Concluding that the allegations warranted detailed examination, the CCI ordered a formal investigation into the conduct.
Merger Control
CCI widens the scope of the minority acquisition exemption to include intra-group transfers
At the time of assessing certain internal restructuring of the Kedaara group, the CCI held that Rule 3 of the Competition (Criteria for Exemption of Combinations) Rules, 2024 (“Exemption Rules“) which inter-alia exempts an acquisition of additional shares where the acquirer/its group (a) does not acquire more than 25% of the shares or voting rights of the target company; and (b) does not acquire new rights or control in the target company (“Rule 3 Exemption“), will also apply to transactions where there is an intra-group transfer of shares and there is no incremental acquisition of shares or rights in the target company.
Pursuant to this transaction, the contemporaneous minority intragroup transfer of shares of Lenskart Solutions Limited (“Lenskart“) and Care Health Insurance Limited (“Care“) to the Kedaara II Continuation Fund was notified to the CCI. Taking note of the fact that both the selling and acquiring entities of the Lenskart and Care shares were all under the sole control of the Kedaara group and that pursuant to the transaction there would be no change in the rights or control exercised by Kedaara in Lenskart and Care, the CCI observed that the proposed transaction would be eligible for the Rule 3 Exemption and as such need not have been notified to the CCI.
Notably, the CCI while passing its order also observed that a literal interpretation of the Rule 3 Exemption which only limited applicability of the said exemption to transactions that resulted in an incremental or additional acquisition of shares would be inconsistent with the scheme and spirit of the Competition Act and the Exemption Rules and would, therefore, lead to an apparent fallacy in situations where all the conditions contained in the Rule 3 Exemption are otherwise fulfilled.
CCI penalises Allcargo for gun-jumping, affirms broad interpretation of ‘control’
By its order dated 8 January 2026, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 5 million (~ USD 53,050) on Allcargo Logistics Limited (“Allcargo“) for acquiring an additional stake in Gati-Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. (“Gati“) without seeking prior approval of the CCI, pursuant to which Allcargo’s shareholding in Gati would increase from 70% to 100%.
While rejecting Allcargo’s claim that it already exercised decisive control over Gati and that the transaction qualified for an exemption, the CCI observed that the minority shareholders of Gati not only had the ability to block special resolutions by virtue of their shareholding exceeding 25% but also had veto rights, thus being able to exercise negative control over Gati. Consequently, CCI held that the acquisition resulted in a shift from joint to sole control, thereby triggering a mandatory notification requirement under the Competition Act. Further the CCI also reiterated that any change in the nature or degree of control could render certain exemptions inapplicable while also emphasizing that notification obligations are independent of whether the transaction raises competition concerns.
Developments in the Legal Framework
IBC amendment changes timing of CCI approval in insolvency cases
On 30 March 2026, the Indian Parliament passed the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which introduced a key reform to the interface between Indian merger control regime under the Competition Act and the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Under the revised framework, resolution applicants are now required to secure CCI approval only before submitting the plan to the adjudicating authority i.e., National Company Law Tribunal, for final approval, rather than at the earlier stage prior to voting by the committee of creditors.
For more information contact:
Zenia Cassinath
Partner & Practice Head – Competition
zenia.cassinath@veritaslegal.in
DISCLAIMER
VERSED by Veritas Legal intends to provide the readers with an overview of some of the noteworthy legal developments for education / information purposes only. This newsletter should not be construed or relied on as legal advice, or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should reach out to us for any specific factual or legal questions or clarifications; and are encouraged to seek legal advice before acting on any information provided herein. The enclosed information is available in the public domain and shall not be construed as dissemination of any confidential information.