Antitrust And Competition Newsletter | December 2025

In November 2025, significant developments emerged in India's competition regulatory landscape, primarily driven by judicial decisions and actions of the Competition Commission of India ("CCI"). The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT") partly allowed appeals by WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc., but upheld the INR 213.14 crore penalty against Meta for abusing dominance related to the 2021 Privacy Policy (unfair conditions and denial of market access), while setting aside the finding of leveraging dominance and a related 5-year data-sharing ban. CCI has sought clarification on the said order. The High Court of Delhi, in the CCI vs. Geep Industries and United India Insurance vs. CCI matters, delivered a crucial ruling on penalty enforcement, quashing the CCI's demand for retrospective interest on penalties by establishing that the levy of interest requires the mandatory issuance and service of a formal Demand Notice. In anti-trust orders, the CCI re-determined the penalty in the Nagrik Chetna Manch bid-rigging cases, imposing the maximum prescribed penalty (10% of average global turnover) on six entities due to the egregious nature of their anti-competitive conduct. Finally, on the merger control front, the CCI approved acquisition of Jhajjar Power Limited by Jindal Jhajjar Power Limited; acquisition of Toyota Industries Corporation by Toyota Asset Preparatory Co., Ltd etc. For keeping our readers updated, in this edition, we provide a quick snapshot of the regulation of predatory pricing under Indian Competition Law, followed by a brief of orders/judgments by NCLAT and the Delhi High Court, anti-trust orders passed, and combinations approved by the CCI, along with information on upcoming events.

Regulation of Predatory Pricing under Indian Competition Law

In India, predatory pricing is regulated under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended in 2023) ("Act"). Section 4(1) of the Act prohibits any enterprise or group from abusing its dominant position. In terms of Section 4(2), there shall be an abuse of dominant position if the enterprise or group, among other practices, directly or indirectly imposes an unfair or discriminatory price in the purchase or sale of goods or services, which includes predatory pricing.

Under the Act, "predatory price" is defined at Explanation (b) to Section 4 to mean the sale of goods or provision of services at a price which is below the cost (as may be determined by relevant regulations) of production of the goods or provision of services, with a view to reduce competition or eliminate competitors. The investigation into predatory pricing requires the CCI to first establish that the enterprise or group holds a "dominant position" in the "relevant market". Explanation (a) to Section 4 defines "dominant position" as a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise or group in the relevant market in India, which enables it to operate independently of competitive forces or affect its competitors or consumers in its favour. Regulations framed by the CCI govern the determination of the "cost" benchmark for assessing predatory pricing. Specifically, the Competition Commission of India (Determination of Cost of Production) Regulations, 2025, provide the methodology. In terms of Regulation 3 of said regulations, "Cost" in the Explanation to Section 4 of the Act shall, generally, be taken as average variable cost, as a proxy for marginal cost. The CCI may, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing and depending on the nature of the industry and market, consider other cost concepts such as average total cost.

Judgements passed by the Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi dismisses the CCI's appeal, reaffirming that a demand notice is mandatory before interest can be imposed on a penalty

Competition Commission of India vs. Geep Industries & Ors. (LPA 727/2024)

The High Court of Delhi, vide its judgment dated 01.11.2025, dismissed the letters patent appeal filed by the CCI challenging the single judge judgement, setting aside CCI's demand for retrospective interest on a reduced penalty amount imposed on Geep Industries in a cartelization case.

The High Court in its judgment upheld the findings of the Single Judge that - i) the issuance and service of a formal Demand Notice (Form-I) under Regulation 3 of the Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011 ("Penalty Regulations"), is a mandatory precondition for the levy of interest, and ii) the liability to pay interest, specified in Regulation 5 (at 1.5% per month), does not arise automatically upon the expiry of the period mentioned in the original penalty order. Interest accrues only upon the failure to make payment within the time stipulated in the mandatory Demand Notice.

Additionally, the High Court rejected CCI's assumption that interest accrues automatically by operation of law upon expiry of the penalty order's period, even while an appeal against final order of the CCI was pending and that the principle of restitution could not be invoked to retrospectively trigger the liability to pay interest.

The High Court of Delhi allows United India Insurance's appeal and quashes the CCI's demand for interest on the penalty

United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Competition Commission of India (LPA 724/2019)

In another judgement dated 01.11.2025, the High Court of Delhi allowed the appeal of United India Insurance Company Limited and set aside previous judgement passed by the single judge. The Court quashed the CCI's demand notices issued by it demanding the payment of interest on the penalty amount levied by it upon the appellant in a cartelization case.

In its judgement, the High Court overturned the findings of the previous single judge judgement & reiterated that the liability to pay interest on the monetary penalty under Regulation 5 of the Penalty Regulations, does not arise automatically upon the expiry of the period mentioned in the original penalty order and that issuance and service of a formal Demand Notice (Form-I) under Regulation 3 of the Penalty Regulations is a mandatory and statutory precondition for the levy of interest on the penalty.

The High Court absolved the appellant from any liability to pay interest upon the penalty under the said regulations. The inaction by the CCI to recover the penalty or claim interest during the subsistence of the stay granted by the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal was deemed to demonstrate an implicit acknowledgement that the CCI was not entitled to recover the penalty or claim interest during that period. The subsequent demand for interest by the CCI was held to be arbitrary, unjust, and unfair.

The Delhi High Court issues notice in writ petition file by Apple Inc. challenging legality of computation of penalty upon global turnover

Apple Inc & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 17934/2025)

On 01.12.2025, the High Court issued notices to the respondents in a writ petition filed by Apple Inc. The petition, filed on 25.11.2025, challenges the legality of the amended provisions of Section 27(b) and the newly introduced penalty guidelines of the CCI, which permit the imposition of penalties based on a company's global turnover. Apple contends that these provisions are arbitrary and disproportionately harsh. The challenge is closely linked to an ongoing investigation into Apple's App Store practices and is expected to serve as a significant test case for the validity of India's revised competition law framework.

Judgements passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLAT upholds Google/Meta's penalty of INR 213.14 crores (approx. USD 25.6 million)

WhatsApp LLC & Ors. vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal No. 1 of 2025 with Competition Appeal No. 2 of 2025)

The NCLAT, in its judgment dated 04.11.2025, partly allowed the appeals filed by WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. against CCI order dated 18.11.2024. The NCLAT upheld the CCI's penalty of INR 213.14 crore (~ USD 23.9 million) against Meta and confirmed that Meta/WhatsApp had abused its dominant position regarding the 2021 Privacy Policy update in India. The NCLAT upheld the finding of a violation concerning the imposition of unfair conditions and denial of market access but set aside the finding on leveraging dominance.

The NCLAT in its judgment upheld the findings of the CCI that - i) Meta (through WhatsApp) has imposed an unfair condition on users, in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, by coercing WhatsApp users to accept the expanded user data collection and sharing with the Meta group without an opt-out under the 2021 Update; and ii) sharing of WhatsApp users' data between Meta companies for non-WhatsApp purposes results in denial of market access in the online display advertisement market, in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The NCLAT also upheld the behavioral remedies issued by the CCI for non-advertising data sharing, which include providing a detailed explanation of data sharing and offering an opt-out choice to manage such data sharing, were upheld.

However, it overturned the findings/directions of the CCI that Meta had violated Section 4(2)(e) of the Act and set aside CCI's 5-year ban on sharing of user data by WhatsApp with other Meta companies for advertising purposes

The NCLAT, in its judgment dated 04.11.2025, partly allowed the appeals filed by WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. against the CCI's order dated 18.11.2024. The Tribunal upheld the CCI's penalty of INR 213.14 crore (~USD 23.9 million) against Meta and confirmed that Meta/WhatsApp had abused its dominant position in relation to the 2021 Privacy Policy update in India. It upheld the findings of violation concerning the imposition of unfair conditions and denial of market access but set aside the finding on leveraging dominance.

The NCLAT affirmed the CCI's conclusions that Meta (through WhatsApp) imposed an unfair condition on users, in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, by requiring users to accept expanded data collection and sharing with the Meta group without an opt-out option under the 2021 Update; and that sharing of WhatsApp user data with Meta companies for non-WhatsApp purposes resulted in denial of market access in the online display advertising market, in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The NCLAT also upheld the behavioral remedies imposed by the CCI for non-advertising data sharing, including the requirement to provide a detailed explanation of data-sharing practices and to offer users an opt-out mechanism.

However, the Tribunal overturned the CCI's finding that Meta had violated Section 4(2)(e) of the Act and set aside the CCI's five-year ban on WhatsApp sharing user data with other Meta companies for advertising purposes.

Orders Passed and Combinations Approved by the Competition Commission of India

CCI applies global turnover standard to re-calculate penalties in Pune municipal corporation bid-rigging matter after NCLAT direction

In re: Nagrik Chetna Manch & Ors. (Case No. 50 of 2015 with Suo Motu Case No. 03 of 2016)

The CCI, on 10.11.2025, passed a fresh order under Section 27 of the Act in the Pune municipal corporation bid-rigging matter, following a remand from the NCLAT to reconsider and provide detailed reasons for the quantum of penalty imposed on parties involved in bid-rigging/collusive bidding. The NCLAT in the said order upheld the findings of the CCI in the matter but requested the CCI to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty, i.e., up to 10% of the turnover.

The CCI in its analysis considered the newly notified Competition Commission of India (Determination of Monetary Penalty) Guidelines, 2024 ("Penalty Guidelines"), in view of which a penalty is to be determined by first identifying the 'relevant turnover' of the enterprise. While determining the penalty, the CCI observed that determination of 'relevant turnover' (as defined in Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. CCI) in the instant case would be inappropriate and lead to an inequitable and anomalous result as several opposite parties submitted cover bids and were not present operating in the relevant market of solid waste management. Hence, their relevant turnover would be nil and applying nil relevant turnover would mean no penalty. Therefore, the CCI decided to compute the penalty based on global turnover of the opposite parties and imposed a maximum penalty of 10% of the total turnover of the six opposite parties.

CCI closes information filed against Singareni Collieries Company Limited for alleged bid-rigging

In re: Universal Gauges and Instruments vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited (Case No. 22 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its order dated 19.11.2025, closed an information filed by Universal Gauges ("Informant") against Singareni Collieries Company Limited ("OP") alleging bid-rigging in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) of the Act. The Informant contended that its bid was unfairly disqualified at the pre-qualification stage based on an evaluation report prepared by the OP.

While assessing the allegations, the CCI observed that although the Informant claimed the evaluation report was prepared without proper consideration of evidence and indicated favoritism, it had not furnished any specific or substantive material such as details of competing bidders, bid quotes, or technical parameters to support allegations of collusion or anti-competitive conduct. The CCI further emphasized that procurers have the autonomy to determine tender conditions and technical eligibility criteria. It concluded that the issues raised did not give rise to any competition concern. Accordingly, the CCI ordered the closure of the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

CCI directs an investigation against the Basketball Federation of India for alleged abuse of dominance.

In re: Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited ("Informant") vs. Basketball Federation of India (Case No. 10 of 2024)

The CCI, vide its order dated 25.11.2025, directed an investigation against the Basketball Federation of India ("BFI") for alleged contraventions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The information was filed by Elite Pro Basketball Private Limited, which alleged that BFI, being the National Sports Federation for basketball, had abused its dominant position by imposing unreasonable restrictions on players and denying market access to other league organizers.

In its analysis, the CCI held that BFI constitutes an "enterprise" under the Act and enjoys a dominant position in the relevant market for the organization of basketball leagues, events, and tournaments in India. The CCI observed that BFI's circulars mandating exclusive participation only in BFI-sanctioned tournaments restrict the ability of players, referees, and coaches to offer their services elsewhere, thereby prima facie violating Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act. Further, BFI's refusal to sanction the informant's proposed leagues such as the Elite Pro Basketball League and Elite Pro 3x3 League as well as its insistence on signing an MoU without clear justification, also prima facie amounts to denial of market access under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The CCI also found prima facie evidence of anti-competitive agreements in the form of exclusive distribution under Section 3(4)(c) and refusal to deal under Section 3(4)(d), arising from BFI's coercive conduct and the absence of a transparent framework for authorizing third-party events. Accordingly, the CCI directed the Director General to conduct an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act.

Combinations Approved by CCI

• CCI approved the acquisition of certain businesses from ICICI Venture Funds Management Company Limited by ICICI Prudential Asset Management Company Limited ¹.
• CCI approved acquisition of Toyota Industries Corporation by Toyota Asset Preparatory Co., Ltd ².
• CCI approved the proposed acquisition of 100% shareholding of Jhajjar Power Limited by Jindal Jhajjar Power Limited ³.
• CCI approved the proposed merger of ADES International Cayman, a wholly owned subsidiary of ADES International Holding Ltd. with and into Shelf Drilling, Ltd ⁴.
• CCI approved the proposed combination involving inter alia acquisition by India Resurgence Fund in Shree Digvijay Cement Company Limited and acquisition by Digvijay Cement Company Limited in Hi-Bond Cement (India) Private Limited ⁵.
• CCI approved proposed acquisition of 11% to 20% of shareholding of the AWL Agri Business Limited by Lence Pte. Ltd ⁶.
• CCI approves acquisition of a certain shareholding in La Renon Healthcare Private Limited by Rajadhiraja Limited ⁷.
• CCI approves the acquisition of certain shareholding of IL JIN Electronics (India) Private Limited (IL JIN/Target) by ChrysCapital Fund X (CC Fund X), Two Infinity Partners (Two Infinity), and Raptor Investments Limited (Raptor) (collectively "Acquirers") ⁸.
• CCI approves the proposed acquisition of up to 80.15% shareholding of Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. by BCP Asia II Holdco VII Pte. Ltd ⁹.
• Commission approves acquisition of certain shareholding of Continuum Green Energy Holdings Ltd. by Continuum Energy Pte. Ltd ¹⁰.

Deemed Approvals

• NIAV Pte. Ltd. and Montera Investments Pte. Ltd. received deemed approval of the CCI to acquire approximately 31% shareholding (on a fully diluted basis) in InMobi Pte. Ltd. via the Green Channel Route ¹¹.
• Indo-Infra Inc. received deemed approval of the CCI to acquire approximately 21.35% shareholding (on a fully diluted basis) of Illuminate Asia Holdings III Pte. Ltd. via the Green Channel Route. The transaction also includes the acquisition of an additional stake in Lighthouse Learning Private Limited (LHL) from its promoter ¹².

Mark Your Calendar: Upcoming Events!

• Global Forum on Competition 2025 scheduled on December 1-December 2, 2025 (click here).
• Symposium on Competition Law: Competition Regulation, New Age Markets & Competition Law Compliance scheduled on December 12, 2025 (click here).
• The Competition Next Gen Summit 2026 scheduled on March 3 - March 4, 2026 (click here).

Footnote

1. C-2025/10/1335

2. C-2025/10/1341

3. C-2025/10/1337

4. C-2025/08/1323

5. C-2025/09/1332

6. C-2025/08/1321

7. C-2025/09/1333

8. C-2025/09/1326

9. C-2025/09/1331

10. C-2025/09/1334

11. C-2025/11/1348

12. C-2025/11/1345

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.