September 2025 witnessed a number of significant judicial and regulatory developments in Indian competition law. The period was marked by continued judicial clarification of the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) jurisdictional limits, the reinforcement of procedural discipline in investigations, and refined guidance on the computation of penalties.

Key highlights include:

• The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that the CCI lacks jurisdiction over conduct governed by the Patents Act, 1970, thereby underscoring the primacy of specialised legislation in matters involving patent licensing.

• The Bombay High Court dismissed Asian Paints Limited’s petition challenging a CCI-directed investigation, confirming the CCI’s discretion at the prima facie stage.

• The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reiterated that sovereign functions of the Government lie outside the purview of the Competition Act, 2002.

• The CCI closed its investigation into GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited and GMR Aero Technic Limited, finding no evidence of abuse of dominance.

• The Supreme Court upheld the CCI’s imposition of both financial and behavioural remedies in the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation case.

• The NCLAT further clarified the application of the “single economic entity” defence and confirmed that total turnover may be used as the basis for penalty computation in certain bid-rigging cases.

Together, these rulings demonstrate the judiciary’s ongoing effort to delineate the scope of the CCI’s authority, uphold procedural propriety, and ensure proportionality in enforcement.

Jurisdiction of the CCI

Supreme Court Clarifies CCI’s Jurisdiction in Patent Licensing

In Competition Commission of India v. Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the limits of the CCI’s jurisdiction where issues are governed by the Patents Act, 1970.

The controversy stemmed from allegations of excessive royalties and unfair licensing terms imposed by patentees, including Monsanto and Ericsson, on technology users. The CCI had initiated investigations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act; however, the patentees challenged the CCI’s jurisdiction, arguing that the Patents Act provides a self-contained mechanism for redressing such grievances.

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to quash the investigations, confirming that disputes concerning the exercise of patent rights must be adjudicated under the Patents Act and not through the Competition Act. The Court also noted that settlements reached between patentees and informants rendered further proceedings redundant.

This judgment reinforces the doctrine that special legislation prevails over general law, preserving the authority of the Controller of Patents and ensuring regulatory harmony across statutory regimes.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Asian Paints’ Petition

In Asian Paints Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Anr., the Bombay High Court dismissed APL’s challenge to the CCI’s direction for investigation into alleged abuse of dominance following an information filed by Grasim Industries Limited.

The Court upheld the CCI’s discretion to refer matters for investigation at the prima facie stage without granting a pre-referral hearing. It further clarified that Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act serves as an enabling provision to prevent duplication of proceedings and does not constrain the CCI’s power to re-examine similar allegations if warranted by new material.

Finally, the Court held that procedural discrepancies in the publication of orders do not invalidate them so long as an authenticated version is duly signed and communicated. The judgment affirms judicial deference to the CCI’s investigative autonomy at the preliminary stage.

NCLAT Affirms Non-Applicability of Competition Act to Sovereign Functions

In Beach Mineral Producers Association v. Government of India & Ors., the NCLAT upheld the CCI’s dismissal of allegations against the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and others concerning export policy changes for beach sand minerals.

The Tribunal held that governmental actions undertaken in the exercise of sovereign authority, particularly in relation to strategic sectors such as atomic energy, fall outside the ambit of the Competition Act. This decision strengthens the jurisprudence that competition law does not extend to non-commercial sovereign functions, thereby delineating the limits of antitrust scrutiny.

Abuse of Dominance

CCI Closes Investigation Against GMR Hyderabad International Airport

In Air Works India (Engineering) Private Limited v. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited and GMR Aero Technic Limited, the CCI closed proceedings alleging abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Act.

The Director General’s investigation found that while GMR enjoyed a dominant position in providing airport facilities at Hyderabad’s Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, it had not engaged in exclusionary or discriminatory conduct against competitors in the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) segment. The CCI found no evidence of denial of market access or leveraging of dominance, thereby exonerating GMR and its subsidiary, GAT.

This closure reflects the CCI’s pragmatic approach in assessing dominance allegations based on economic evidence rather than mere structural advantage.

Anti-Competitive Agreements

Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Powers to Impose Remedies

In Competition Commission of India v. Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the CCI’s decision to impose both financial penalties and behavioural restrictions on the Federation and its office-bearers for engaging in anti-competitive conduct under Section 3 of the Act.

The Court affirmed that the CCI possesses broad remedial powers, including the ability to impose behavioural obligations alongside monetary penalties, provided such measures are proportionate and justified by the facts. The judgment emphasised the accountability of individuals in leadership positions who directly participate in or authorise anti-competitive practices.

NCLAT Clarifies Penalty Computation and Single Economic Entity Defence

In Austere Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, the NCLAT dismissed appeals against the CCI’s finding of bid-rigging in soil testing tenders. The Tribunal upheld the use of total turnover for penalty computation in cases where reliance on “relevant turnover” would lead to a negligible or nil penalty, thus defeating the purpose of deterrence.

The NCLAT further clarified that entities cannot invoke the single economic entity defence merely on the basis of related-party status unless there exists unified control, common ownership, and aligned commercial interests. The ruling provides valuable interpretative guidance for future bid-rigging cases.

Conclusion

September 2025 underscored the maturing of Indian competition jurisprudence, with the higher judiciary providing much-needed clarity on the boundaries of regulatory jurisdiction, the principles of procedural propriety, and the proportional exercise of enforcement powers.

Collectively, these decisions reinforce a balanced approach—respecting the autonomy of specialised regulators while preserving the CCI’s mandate to foster fair competition. They also reaffirm that competition law enforcement in India continues to evolve in alignment with international best practices, ensuring both accountability and predictability for market participants.