Antitrust And Competition Newsletter | June 2026

In June 2026, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) passed multiple antitrust enforcement orders and approved several combinations, reflecting its continued focus on addressing anti-competitive conduct across diverse sectors. During the month, the CCI ordered investigations into alleged exploitative contractual practices and abuse of dominance in the beauty pageant sector, passed a cease and desist order against truck associations in Odisha for cartelization, closed long running pharma distribution case and disposed of several matters where competition concerns were not substantiated concerning real estate, airport transport, and digital services sectors. On the merger control front, the CCI approved numerous mergers, acquisitions, and strategic investments across infrastructure, energy, consumer goods, technology, and data centre industries etc.

To keep readers updated, this edition provides a brief note on the regulation of gun-jumping under Indian competition law, followed by key insights from recent antitrust orders issued and combinations approved by the CCI, along with details of upcoming competition law events.

Gun-jumping under Indian Competition Law

In India, an M&A transaction that qualifies as a “combination” under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the “Act”), is required to be mandatorily notified to the CCI under Section 6 of the Act for its approval. Under Section 5, a transaction is notifiable where it involves the acquisition of shares, voting rights, assets, or control, or a merger or amalgamation, and the applicable jurisdictional and/or deal value thresholds are met at either the parties’ level or the group level, in India or worldwide. Pursuant to Section 6(2A) of the Act, parties to a notifiable combination are prohibited from consummating the transaction until they have received the CCI’s approval or 150 (one hundred and fifty) days have elapsed from the date of filing the notification, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, where parties implement or consummate a transaction, whether wholly or partly, before obtaining the CCI's approval or before expiry of the applicable standstill period, they may be regarded as having violated the Act by engaging in “gun-jumping”.

Gun-jumping can result in significant legal and commercial consequences, including substantial monetary penalties under Section 43A and reputational harm. Specifically, the CCI may impose a penalty of up to 1% of the total turnover, assets, or deal value of the combination, whichever is higher, as provided under the Act.

Orders Passed and Combinations Approved by the Competition Commission of India

CCI Orders Investigation Against Mrs. India Inc. For Exploitative Participant Agreements And Abuse of Dominance in Married Women's Beauty Pageant Market

In Re: Rinima Borah Agarwal And Mrs. India Inc. (Case No. 12 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 02.06.2026, directed a probe against Mrs. India Inc. (“OP”) for alleged contravention of Sections 3(4)(a), 3(4)(b), 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(d) of the Act. An information was filed by Rinima Borah Agarwal, a participant and first runner-up in the OP’s 2024 beauty pageant, alleging that the OP abused its dominant position in the niche beauty pageant market for married women by requiring participants to make substantial payments before disclosing onerous contractual terms and thereafter imposing one-sided conditions that restricted participation in competing pageants for five years, mandated prior approval for professional engagements, required association only with OP-approved social causes, and granted the OP extensive control over participants’ careers, earnings and content rights. The Informant further alleged that the OP demanded additional payments for participation in international pageants, foreclosed competition through restrictive contractual clauses, and imposed unfair and exploitative conditions on participants. The Informant also alleged that the OP and the organizers of the Mrs. Globe pageant were engaged in a collusive arrangement, in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act, whereby winners were allegedly pre-determined based on payments made by participants.

The CCI, in its analysis, rejected the allegation of cartelization between the OP and the organizers of the Mrs. Globe pageant, observing that no evidence had been produced to establish the existence of any agreement or pre-determination of winners. However, it observed that the impugned agreements between the OP and participants were vertical arrangements requiring examination under Section 3(4) of the Act. Upon perusal of the relevant clauses, the CCI prima facie observed that the restrictions preventing participants from associating with competing beauty pageants constituted an exclusive dealing arrangement, while the requirement that participants associate only with social causes recognized by the OP constituted a tie-in arrangement. With respect to the allegations of abuse of dominance, the CCI delineated the relevant market as the market for services of beauty pageants for married women in India for sending winners to major international beauty pageants and observed that the OP appeared to be a dominant player therein. The CCI further noted that several contractual provisions, including restrictions on professional engagements without the OP’s approval, the five-year non-compete obligations, and mandatory participation in social causes designated by the OP, appeared to be unfair, one-sided and unrelated to the subject matter of the contract. Accordingly, the Commission formed a prima facie view that the OP may have contravened Sections 3(4)(a), 3(4)(b), 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i) and 4(2)(d) of the Act and directed the DG to investigate the matter.

CCI Closes Long-Running Pharma Distribution Case, Finds No Contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act.

In Re: Kailash Gupta, President, All India Chemists and Distributors Federation v. All India Organisation of Chemists & Druggists & Ors. (Case No. 06 of 2012)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 29.06.2026, closed a long-standing antitrust case against the All-India Organization of Chemists and Druggists (“AIOCD”), its affiliated chemists associations, industry bodies and several other pharmaceutical companies, finding no contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

An information was filed by the All-India Chemist and Distributors Federation (“AICDF”) alleging that AIOCD and its affiliates required pharmaceutical companies to obtain No Objection Certificates (“NOCs”)/Letters of Cooperation (“LOCs”) before appointing stockists or distributors, thereby restricting market access and controlling the distribution of medicines. The Informant further alleged that pharmaceutical companies were also compelled to obtain Product Information Service (“PIS”) approvals and pay PIS charges before launching any new products, failing which they faced the risk of business disruptions. Additionally, it was claimed that AIOCD, through Memorandums of Understanding (“MoUs”) with Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association (“IDMA”) and Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (“OPPI”), influenced stockist appointments, trade margins, product launches, and supply arrangements, resulting in restrictions on free trade and competition. The informant also alleged instances of collective refusal to deal, group boycotts, and supply stoppages against manufacturers, distributors, and wholesalers who did not comply with these requirements, thereby creating barriers to market entry and limiting competition in the pharmaceutical distribution sector. The CCI, upon perusal of the said information directed an investigation into the matter and called for the investigation report of the Director General (“DG”). The DG returned its report with adverse findings against AIOCD, IDMA and OPPI.

In its analysis, the CCI observed that although the DG had found contraventions of Section 3 of the Act, the material relied upon largely dated back to the period before 2011 (i.e. 2009-2011). It noted that the impugned MoUs had been terminated in 2011, and that pursuant to its earlier decisions, the AIOCD had already undertaken compliance measures addressing NOC/LOC requirements, mandatory PIS approvals, trade margin fixation and boycott practices. The CCI further observed that no cogent evidence of continuation of these practices after the MoUs were discontinued had been demonstrated and noted that various pharmaceutical companies asserted that they had appointed stockists independently of any NOC requirements and denied being compelled to follow such mandates. Accordingly, the CCI held that no contravention of Section 3 of the Act was made out and closed the matter.

CCI Holds Odisha Truck Associations Guilty Of Price Fixation And Market Foreclosure In Mineral Transport Sector; Issues Cease And Desist Directions

In Re: Indian Steel Association And Bhadrasahi/ Guali Truck Association & Anr. (Case No. 21 of 2022)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 09.06.2026, found four truck associations operating in Odisha’s mining belt, namely Bhadrasahi/Guali Truck Association (“OP-1”), Bonai Truck and Tipper Owners’ Association (“OP-2”), Keonjhar District Truck Owners’ Association (“OP-3”) and Joda Truck Owners’ Association (“OP-4”), to be in contravention of Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. An information was filed by the Indian Steel Association (“Informant”), alleging that the OPs collectively fixed freight rates for transportation of mineral-carrying goods beyond the maximum rates prescribed by the State Transport Authority (“STA”), restricted the entry of independent transporters into mining areas, and limited the use of higher-capacity trucks. The CCI, upon perusal of the said information, directed an investigation into the matter and called for the investigation report of the DG. The DG returned its report with adverse findings against the OPs.

In its analysis, the CCI concurred with the findings of the DG and observed that the evidence on record, including freight rate charts, resolutions, circulars, admissions of office-bearers and communications issued by the associations, clearly demonstrated a concerted practice of fixing and revising freight rates. The CCI held that freight rates must be determined independently by individual transporters and cannot be collectively fixed through trade associations. It further noted that the associations not only determined freight rates but also enforced them through their members, including by issuing directions and threats against transporters who deviated from the prescribed rates. Additionally, the CCI found that the mandatory registration of transporters with the associations, the preferential treatment accorded to member trucks and the exclusion of non-member transporters from operating in mining areas amounted to limiting and controlling the provision of transportation services. Accordingly, the CCI held that the OPs had contravened Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Further, the CCI also held the identified office bearers of the associations liable under Section 48 of the Act.

In its Order, the CCI directed the OPs to cease and desist from engaging in such anti-competitive conduct in the future. While finding both the associations and their office bearers liable, the CCI deferred determination of monetary penalties as the OPs and their individuals had failed to furnish the financial information sought by the CCI despite multiple opportunities.

CCI Closes Information Against Advance India Projects Limited; Finds No Prima Facie Dominance In Gurugram Commercial Real Estate

In Re: Jaya Pandey and Prakash C Pandey And Advance India Projects Limited (Case No. 05 of 2026)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 15.06.2026, closed the information filed by Jaya Pandey and Prakash C. Pandey against Advance India Projects Limited (“AIPL”), a real estate developer alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The informants alleged that AIPL holds a significant strength in the market for organized commercial retail estate in India and has abused its dominant position by imposing unilateral, discretionary and restrictive conditions the non-negotiable Buyer Builder Agreements.

The CCI in its analysis, noted that while the informants have alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Act, the same has not been substantiated by way of any evidence. With respect to the allegations pertaining to abuse of dominance, the CCI relied upon the publicly available Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“THRERA”) registration data and noted that AIPL ranks 10th amongst developers operating in the city besides other major players in the market for organized commercial real estate in Gurugram. Accordingly, the CCI did not find AIPL dominant in the relevant market and dismissed the allegations of violation of Section 4 of the Act. Additionally, the CCI also noted that the grievances of the informant relating to possession, rental disbursements and contractual obligations were already pending before the Delhi Consumer Redressal Commission, THRERA and the District Court, Saket.

CCI Closes Complaint Against Airport Cab Operator At Chandigarh International Airport; Holds Tender-Based Licence Does Not Confer Dominance

In re: Mr. Harmeet Singh And Nanuan’s (Nanuan Travels) & Anr. (Case No. 45 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 08.06.2026, closed the information filed by Mr. Harmeet Singh against Nanuan’s, a luxury car rental company (also known as Nanuan Travels) (“OP-1”) and Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Airport (“OP-2”) for alleged contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The information alleged that OP-1 having been awarded the license to provide taxi/cab services at the airport pursuant to a competitive tender, had abused its dominant position by preventing independent cab operators from accessing areas near the airport arrival gate, thereby foreclosing competition and imposing high fares that frequently breached the maximum price limits set by Chandigarh International Airport Limited (“CHIAL”), the manager of OP-2.

The CCI, in its analysis, noted that the license of OP-1 has been granted pursuant to a competitive bidding process and that a mere grant of such license does not confer either statutory or de facto exclusivity. Upon perusal of the license agreement, the CCI observed that no such exclusive right to operate at the premises of OP-2 has been accorded to OP-1 and that the discretion to permit other such service providers within the premises of OP-2 rests with CHIAL. Further, the CCI also noted that the passengers have continued access to alternative modes of transport at OP-2, including app-based cab aggregators such as Ola and Uber and pre-arranged transport services. In view of the said observations, the CCI dismissed the allegations pertaining to abuse of dominance by OP-1 and held that the said license arrangement neither created barriers to entry nor foreclosed competition in the relevant market of “taxi/cab transportation services at Chandigarh International Airport”. With respect to allegations pertaining to contravention of Section 3 of the Act, the CCI noted that no material substantiating the existence of any anti-competitive agreement under Section 3 of the Act has been produced and therefore dismissed the same. As regards the allegations relating to intimidation, violence and police inaction, the CCI observed that such grievances pertained to alleged criminal misconduct and fell outside the scope of competition law.

CCI Closes Complaint Against Invideo AI; Holds Bilateral Subscription Disputes Do Not Raise Competition Concerns

In Re: Dinesh Kumar Dadsena And Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Case No. 01 of 2026)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 04.06.2026, closed the information filed by Dinesh Kumar Dadsena against Whitesheep Technology Pvt. Ltd. (“InVideo AI / OP”), a cloud-based digital video generation and translation platform, alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Act. The informant, a paid subscriber and active user of the platform, alleged that the OP acted in contravention of - (i) Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act by unilaterally cancelling his subscription following a dispute concerning a malfunction in the platform’s translation feature; (ii) Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act by unlawfully limiting and restricting the provision of services by disabling the translation feature due to unresolved malfunction, delayed resolution and cancellation of the entire subscription; and (iii) Section 4(2)(c) of the Act by unilaterally cancelling informant’s subscription despite informant having subsisting paid AI minutes and denying access to essential tools for digital creators. The informant alleged that OP abused its dominant position and manipulated him, in violation of Sections 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(e) of the Act and that such exploitative conduct of OP has resulted in direct economic loss by disrupting informant’s professional workflow etc.

In its analysis, the CCI observed that the grievances raised by the informant are essentially contractual disputes between the parties and did not, by themselves, disclose any competition concerns warranting intervention under the Act. The CCI further held that the remedies, if any, available to the Informant lay before the appropriate forum and not before the CCI.

Accordingly, finding no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act, the Commission closed the information under Section 26(2) of the Act.

Combinations Approved by CCI

1. CCI approves the proposed acquisition of shares, voting rights and control in JV Holding Co. by Mercuria Energy Netherlands B.V. pursuant to the formation of a joint venture with Tata International Singapore (Pte) Limited. ¹
2. CCI approves the proposed acquisition by Cube Highways Trust of equity stake in Baharampore-Farakka Highways Limited; Devanahalli Tollway Private Limited; Western MP Infrastructure; and Toll Roads Private Limited, and Chenani Nashri Tunnelway Limited. ²
3. CCI approves the proposed merger of Indovida India Private Limited with and into EPL Limited by way of absorption. ³
4. CCI approves the proposed acquisition of equity shares in Restaurant Brands Asia Limited by Lenexis Foodworks Private Limited, Aayush Agrawal Trust, Inspira Foodworks Private Limited, Aayush Madhusudan Agrawal and Inspira Agro Trading LLC. ⁴
5. CCI approves the proposed acquisition by Thriveni Earthmovers Private Limited of 7.14% shareholding in Lloyds Engineering Works Limited and the proposed merger by absorption of Lloyds Infrastructure & Construction Limited, Metalfab Hightech Private Limited and Techno Industries Private Limited into Lloyds Engineering Works Limited. ⁵
6. CCI approves the proposed acquisition of 100% share capital and control of GVK Energy Limited by Adani Power Limited pursuant to the corporate insolvency resolution process. ⁶
7. CCI approves the proposed acquisition of a controlling stake in Neysa Networks Private Limited by BCP Asia II Topco V Pte. Ltd. and Asia II Topco XIV Pte. Ltd. (Blackstone), along with acquisition of minority shareholding by other investors. ⁷
8. CCI approves the proposed acquisition of sole control over Kenvue Inc. by Kimberly-Clark Corporation through the merger of Vesta Sub I, Inc. with Kenvue Inc. and the subsequent merger of Kenvue Inc. with Vesta Sub II, LLC. ⁸
9. CCI approves the proposed acquisition of shareholding in Ctrl S Datacenters Limited by CPPIB India Private Holdings Inc. ⁹

Deemed Approvals

1. Aviva International Holdings Limited received deemed approval of the CCI for the proposed acquisition of an additional 26% of the issued and paid-up equity share capital of Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited. ¹⁰
2. Hornbill Tech Investments Limited received deemed approval of the CCI for the proposed acquisition of certain shareholding in Innovation Tech Solutions Private Limited and Krayzie Services Limited. ¹¹

Mark Your Calendar: Upcoming Events!

• Competition Law: Future Leaders (CompLaw: Future Leaders), organized by Informa Connect, scheduled for 23-24 June 2026 at Apollo Hotel, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (“Click Here”)
• 30th Annual IBA Competition Conference, organized by the IBA Antitrust Section, scheduled for 4–5 September 2026 at The St Regis Florence, Florence, Italy. (“Click Here”)
• 53rd Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy, and Antitrust Economics Workshop, scheduled for September 16-18, 2026, at Fordham Law School, New York, USA. (“Click Here”)
• Antitrust Summit US 2026, organised by Economist Enterprise, scheduled for 28 October 2026 in the USA. (“Click Here”)
• 4th Early Career Scholars Conference - "Competition Law as a Guiding Discipline for Digital Economy", scheduled for 12-13 November, 2026, at the Advanced Research Centre, University of Glasgow, UK. (“Click Here”)

Footnotes

1. C-2026/04/1410

2. C-2026/04/1408

3. C-2026/04/1403

4. C-2026/03/1401

5. C-2026/03/1398

6. C-2026/03/1394

7. C-2026/03/1393

8. C-2026/03/1392

9. C-2026/01/1373

10. C-2026/05/1429

11. C-2026/05/1428