Competition Law Newsletter – April 2026

In this edition of the Competition Law Newsletter, we bring to you a significant decision of the Supreme Court and key orders passed by the Competition Commission of India.

SUPREME COURT DISMISSES CCI’S APPEAL AGAINST HIGH COURT ORDER REGARDING INTEREST ON PENALTY

As covered in our December 2025 Newsletter, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 01 November 2025, affirmed the Single Judge’s judgment dated 26 April 2024, which held that the interest on monetary penalties under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) cannot be levied in absence of a valid demand notice as prescribed under the CCI (Manner of Recovery Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011, now amended by way of the 2025 regulations. In the facts of the case, admittedly no such notice had been issued by the CCI. Thus, the attempt to impose retrospective interest from 2018 was held to be unsustainable.

On appeal, the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 09 March 2026, decided not to interfere with the observations made by the High Court but kept the question of law open to be agitated in future proceedings. This is the same questionable approach adopted in the Ericsson case (involving an important question of jurisdiction between the Patents Act and the Competition Act), since the issue will no doubt continue to plague matters before the lower courts.

CCI RULES BOOKMYSHOW’S EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS DO NOT VIOLATE COMPETITION LAW

The CCI vide order dated 12 March 2026, disposed of the information filed by Vijay Gopal (Informant), proprietor of Vanila Entertainments which operates a competing online ticketing portal Showtyme, against Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., which operates BookMyShow. The Informant alleged that BookMyShow had abused its dominant position by entering into exclusive agreements with cinemas operators, thereby denying market access to new entrants like Showtyme.

The Director General defined the relevant market as “online intermediation services for booking movie tickets in India” concluding that BookMyShow held a dominant position in this market. The Director General (DG) further found that BookMyShow had abused its dominance through seat reservation clauses in agreements with single-screen cinemas, discriminatory data ownership terms, unequal revenue sharing of convenience fees, and exclusive agreements that resulted in denial of market access to competitors. The Commission agreed with the DG’s conclusions on the relevant market and dominance; however, it disagreed with the DG on abuse:  

(a) Regarding seat reservation clauses, the Commission accepted BookMyShow’s explanation that such reservations were necessary in tier-2 and tier-3 cities to prevent overlapping bookings where cinemas lacked real-time integration technology.  

(b) On data ownership and sharing practices, the Commission observed that single-screen cinemas and multiplexes were not similarly situated entities, as they differed materially in infrastructure, technical capability, and operational standards, and thus the alleged discrimination was not sustainable. 

(c) With respect to revenue sharing of convenience fees, the Commission noted that the arrangements varied based on multiple commercial factors such as volume of sales, strategic location, marketing costs, and integration expenses, and found instances where single-screen cinemas received comparable or higher shares than multiplexes, thereby negating any finding of discriminatory conduct.  

(d) Regarding exclusive and restrictive agreements, the Commission held that exclusivity clauses, lock-in periods, and security deposits were commercial arrangements intended to ensure business stability and efficiency and noted that BookMyShow had provided reasonable operational justifications such as recovering advance payments made to cinemas. The Commission further observed that the relevant market was not foreclosed, as competing platforms like Paytm and Justickets continued to operate, a significant number of cinema screens remained non-exclusive, and several cinemas had shifted from BookMyShow to other aggregators during the subsistence of their agreements. 

Consequently, the Commission closed the case.

CCI APPROVES ACQUISITION OF OWENS CORNING’S INDIAN GLASS FIBRE BUSINESS BY PRAANA GROUP DESPITE HIGH MARKET SHARES

The CCI vide an order dated 16 September 2025, approved the acquisition of the entire shareholding of Owens-Corning (India) Private Limited (Target) by Triumph Composites Private Limited and Quartz Fibre Private Limited (collectively, Acquirers).

The horizontal overlaps were identified in the supply of glass fibre, specifically chopped strand mat (CSM), assembled rovings (AR), direct rovings (DR), dry use chopped strands (DUCS), woven roving/fabrics (WR/Fabrics), and chopped filament mat (CFM).

The combined market shares of the Parties were considerable:

(a) in CSM it was 30–35% by volume and 40–45% by value;

(b) in AR it was 35–40% (volume) and 45–50% (value);  

(c)  in DR it was 35–40% (volume) and 40–45% (value); 

(d) in WR/Fabrics it was 30–35%; and  

(e) in CFM it was 75–80%. 

Despite the large share, the Commission noted that there are significant imports in all the segments, and that approximately 60% of the domestic demand is catered and sourced through imports. The Commission further noted that the market share data indicates an increasing trend of imports displacing the Parties’ share in the last five years.

It was also submitted that imports are highly price competitive, undercut domestic prices, and compete with domestic products in terms of quality, usage, durability and strength, and that customers enter into spot arrangements subject to extensive negotiations.

The Commission also noted a potential vertical linkage between the upstream supply of DR and the downstream supply of WR/Fabrics.

However, given the significant presence of imports in both upstream and downstream segments, the Commission was of the view that the proposed combination is not likely to confer any ability or incentive to the combined entity to engage in input or customer foreclosure.

CCI APPROVES ACQUISITION OF KROSAKI HARIMA CORPORATION BY NIPPON STEEL

The CCI vide order dated 06 January 2026, approved the acquisition of the remaining 53.4% shareholding in Krosaki Harima Corporation (Krosaki) by Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon Steel), pursuant to which Krosaki will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Nippon Steel.

Upon assessing the transaction, the CCI noted that the business of the parties exhibits vertical relationship, as the refractory products manufactured by Krosaki can be used by steel producers like Nippon Steel. Moreover, refractory products can be further segmented basis their chemical composition, shape and form, and therefore CCI delineated the upstream market as (a) non-basic unshaped refractory products; (b) non-basic shaped refractory products; (c) basic unshaped refractory products; and (d) basic shaped refractory products and the downstream market as market for manufacturing of finished steel in India.

While assessing the above said relevant markets, CCI noted that although the combined market share of the parties being in the range of 15-30% in some of the markets delineated, the parties face significant competition from other players.

Moreover, the CCI also noted that Nippon Steel already has 47% stake in Krosaki, combined with the fact that Nippon and its affiliates procure refractory products from multiple domestic and global suppliers, in addition to Krosaki, suggesting lack of any strategic advantages owing to the transaction. Accordingly, CCI noted that the present transaction is not likely to cause an adverse effect on competition and granted unconditional approval.

CCI APPROVES CHRYS CAPITAL’S ACQUISITION OF STAKE IN IL JIN ELECTRONICS

Vide order dated 07 November 2025, the CCI approved the acquisition of an undisclosed amount of shareholding by ChrysCapital (Acquirer) by way of compulsorily convertible preference shares and equity shares in IL JIN Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Target), a subsidiary of Amber Enterprises India Ltd., which is engaged in electronic manufacturing services and energy solutions.

In its assessment, the CCI noted that the Acquirer and the Target exhibited horizontal overlaps in India in the markets for solar energy solutions, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and electric vehicle (EV) charging systems. Specifically, overlaps were observed in the solar inverter segment, lithium-ion and lead-acid-based BESS segments, and AC and DC EV chargers. The Commission also identified vertical relationships between the parties’ affiliates, including in the supply of printed circuit boards (PCBs), PCB assembly services, and batteries.

Despite these overlaps, the CCI found that the combined market shares of the parties (including their affiliates) were low, ranging from 0-5% in most relevant markets and segments, with only off-grid solar inverters and lead-acid-based BESS having a combined share in the 5-10% range. The incremental market share resulting from the combination was deemed insignificant. Similarly, with respect to the vertical relationships and existing supply arrangements, the CCI concluded that the combination would not lead to any competition foreclosure in the relevant markets.

Accordingly, the Commission held that the proposed combination was not likely to cause an appreciable AAEC in India and granted its approval. 

To read this article in full, please click here.

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.