Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Asian Paints has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court decision that upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order to investigate the company for alleged abuse of dominant position in the decorative paints market.

The investigation was initiated following a complaint filed by Aditya Birla Group's Grasim Industries on July 1.

This follows the Bombay High Court's ruling on September 11, which dismissed a writ petition filed by Asian Paints. The court held that a party has no inherent right to an oral or written hearing at the stage where the CCI forms a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. It stated that the order at this stage is administrative in nature and it is up to the CCI to decide whether a hearing should be granted.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale also rejected Asian Paints' argument that Grasim's complaint was barred under Section 26(2-A) of the Act. The company had pointed to a similar complaint dismissed in 2022, which had been filed by JSW Paints and Balaji Traders.

The Court clarified that Section 26(2-A) does not prevent the CCI from considering a fresh complaint if it presents new facts or supporting material. It explained that the provision is aimed at avoiding duplication of effort but does not create a jurisdictional bar.

“The object of Section 26(2-A) is only to avoid repetition of the task already undertaken, and in the interest of expedience. Section 26(2-A) only cautions and the CCI to be mindful before considering the representation for the said reasons, and cannot be interpreted to create any jurisdictional embargo, when a new complaint is made to CCI,” the Court had observed.

The court had also dismissed claims that the CCI had violated principles of natural justice. They ruled that no party has an inherent right to a hearing at the prima facie stage. Whether or not to offer a hearing is a matter of discretion for the CCI, based on the circumstances of each case.

It found that Grasim's complaint was based on separate facts and merited investigation. It noted that the CCI had been aware of the earlier JSW case but had still found enough substance in Grasim's representation to proceed.

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

SLP(C) No. 028923 - / 2025