Supreme Court Rejects Asian Paints' Plea Against CCI Probe On Complaint By Grasim Industries

The Supreme Court today(October 13) refused to entertain a plea by Asian Paints Ltd 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. Consequently, the Asian Paints Ltd sought permission to withdraw its plea. 

Before a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NK Kaul, appearing for Asian Paints Ltd, argued that it was not allowed an oral or written hearing at the time when CCI formed a prima facie opinion under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, that it had allegedly abused its dominant position in the market.

As per the September 11 order of the Bombay High Court, it stated that the CCI's order was administrative in nature at this stage, and therefore, there is no inherent right for a party to see an oral or written hearing under Section 26(1).

Further, Rohatgi argued that the CCI was barred under Section 26(2A) as a matter of res judicata from entertaining the complaint filed by Aditya Birla Group's Grasim Industries when a similar complaint by JSW was already dismissed in 2022. "The allegations of the [complaints] is almost the same, the language is different here and there. Mylords will find the comparison between the current allegations and the allegations which were made earlier. See the allegations made now-Asian Paints Ltd has threatened the dealers to stop dealing with Grasim by imposing discriminatory and unfair practices upon dealers in the sale of decorative paints market.

In the past, which has ended, the [complaint] was that Asian Paints have threatened dealers to stop dealing with JSW, the informant in that case, denial of market access. Asian Paint impose exclusivity on dealers by offering incentives to exclusively deal with Asian Paints, including higher discounts and promotions, franchises etc, and refused to deal with dealers who dealt with JSW, the informants, by threatening actions..."

Rohatgi argued that the last complaint was investigated for two years, and now, this will go on and on. However, Justice Bishnoi said that Section 26(2A) is meant for cases where more than one complaint is filed on the same or substantially the same facts. Rohatgi responded that the CCI does not base its investigation on the time period. Similar arguments were made by Kaul. He argued that under Section 26(2A), Asian Paints are liable to point out that similar facts have already been alleged and post the addition of this Section, it should not be entertained.

"Surely a party under Section 26(2A) is liable to point out that early complaint and this complaint is identical. My market reputation is at stake, public perception is at stake, damage is being done to me," Kaul argued.

Justice Maheshwari also remarked on Rohatgi's argument that he wasn't allowed to be heard. He said that Section 26 does not require an opportunity of hearing.

Case Details:  ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA|SLP(C) No. 028923 - / 2025