Antitrust And Competition Newsletter | May 2026

May 2026 witnessed significant developments in Indian competition law across judicial review, appellate scrutiny, enforcement, and merger control. At the judicial level, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in the Amazon/Future Coupons case, setting aside a penalty of INR 202 crore (~USD 21.2 million) imposed on Amazon for alleged gun-jumping and non-disclosures. The Delhi High Court also declined to grant interim relief to Apple in proceedings concerning alleged abuse of dominance in the iOS ecosystem, while directing that no final order be passed by the CCI pending further hearings. In a separate development, the Orissa High Court quashed the CCI’s investigation against Rungta Mines in the steel cartel matter, holding that the absence of a valid order under Section 26(1) vitiated the expansion of the investigation. At the appellate level, the NCLAT set aside the CCI’s order against Grasim Industries on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. In another appeal, the NCLAT upheld the CCI’s closure of proceedings against the Kerala State Beverages Corporation due to lack of prima facie evidence.

On the enforcement front, the CCI passed a series of significant orders. It imposed a penalty of INR 50 lakh (~USD 52,447) on Manipal entities for gun-jumping in the AESL acquisition, dismissed allegations of aftermarket abuse against 12 Delhi-based super-specialty hospitals and abuse of dominance claims against Rapido, and directed an investigation against Pernod Ricard and certain wholesalers and retailers in the Delhi liquor market. In the area of merger control, the CCI’s activity remained robust, with approvals spanning sectors such as energy, highways, infrastructure, consumer services, data centres, and insurance. These included deemed approvals in transactions involving Aviva International Holdings and Hornbill Tech Investments.

This edition opens with a brief note on the regulation of hub-and-spoke cartels in India, followed by key insights from recent decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and NCLAT, a review of significant enforcement actions by the CCI, an overview of merger approvals, and details of upcoming competition law events.

Regulation of Hub-and-Spoke Cartels in India

In India, ‘hub-and-spoke’ cartels are regulated under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended in 2023) (“Act”). The concept of ‘hub-and-spoke’ cartels has been introduced under the Act by way of an amendment in 2023. Prior to the said amendment, the construct of Section 3 proscribed horizontal agreements (including cartels) and vertical restraints only. Be that as it may, Section 3(1) imposes a blanket prohibition on all types of anti-competitive agreements that causes of or are likely to cause appreciable adverse effects on competition in India (“AAEC”). A ‘hub-and-spoke’ cartel is an arrangement involving both horizontal and vertical agreements, where a central entity (the “hub”) facilitates coordination relating to prices, market or customer allocation, production, distribution, or any form of bid rigging, among competing entities (the “spokes”) operating at the same level of the market. By way of the amendment, a second proviso to Section 3(3) was inserted whereby a presumption of being a part of an anti-competitive agreement between competing enterprises (acting as ‘spokes’) is prescribed for an enterprise or person or an association (acting as a ‘hub’), though not engaged in same business as that of other competing entities (i.e., the spokes), if it participates or intends to participate in furtherance of such agreement between the spokes.

Orders / Judgments passed by Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Sets Aside CCI’s INR 202 Crore (~ USD 21.2 million) Penalty imposed upon Amazon in Future Coupons Combination Case

Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4974 of 2022)

The Supreme Court of India vide its judgement dated 27.05.2026 allowed Amazon’s appeal and set aside the judgment of the NCLAT dated 13.06.2022 and the CCI’s order dated 17.12.2021. Under the said order, the CCI kept in abeyance its earlier approval of Amazon’s investment in Future Coupons Private Limited (“FCPL”) and directed Amazon to file a fresh notice in Form II, as well as imposed penalties for gun-jumping (under Section 43A) and non-disclosure of material information (under section 44 and 45). The Supreme Court held that, on a proper reading of Section 6(2) of the Act and Regulations 9(4) and 9(5) of the erstwhile Combination Regulations, Amazon’s Form I filing could not be treated as a failure to notify the combination in substance merely because the CCI subsequently took a different view on how certain disclosed agreements and rights ought to have been characterized. The Court found that the contemporaneous record showed that the relevant transaction documents, including the FCPL Shareholders Agreement (“SHA”), the Future Retail Limited (“FRL”) SHA and the business commercial arrangements (“BCAs”), had in fact been placed before the CCI and examined during the original ex ante merger review.

The Supreme Court further held that Section 43A, being a penal provision dealing with failure to give notice under Section 6(2), could not be invoked in a case where a notice had admittedly been filed, processed through request for information(s), and approved under Section 31(1), and where the alleged deficiency was essentially one of under-characterization or legal distancing of disclosed materials rather than non-notification. It also held that the findings under Sections 44 and 45 were unsustainable because the CCI and the NCLAT had not established, with the degree of specificity required in penal proceedings, that Amazon had made a materially false statement, omitted a material particular knowing it to be material, or willfully suppressed documents required to be furnished. The Court emphasized that internal communications may be relevant context, but they could not by themselves displace the legal significance of the executed transaction documents and the contemporaneous review record, particularly when the approval order itself demonstrated that the CCI had examined FRL - inked retail overlaps and relationships at the original stage.

The Court also held that the proviso to Section 20(1) imposed a jurisdictional bar on reopening the combination review after one year from the date the combination had taken effect, and that the CCI could not circumvent that limitation by styling the proceedings as disclosure related while, in substance, seeking to reopen the merger review process through approval abeyance and compelled re-notification in Form II. In addition, the Court held that neither Section 45(2), nor Regulation 5(5), nor any condition in the earlier approval order conferred power on the CCI to keep an approval under Section 31(1) in abeyance or to require a fresh Form II filing after approval. The Supreme Court also found that the proceedings were vitiated by breach of natural justice, since the final order rested on a materially sharper case and imposed consequential directions particularly, approval abeyance and fresh filing, which were not clearly foreshadowed in the show cause notice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the CCI and NCLAT orders, and directed refund of any amount deposited or recovered from Amazon with interest.

Orders / Judgments passed by the High Courts

Delhi High Court Declines Interim Stay; Restricts CCI from Passing Any Final Order Against Apple till next date of hearing

Apple Inc. & Anr. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 17934/2025)

The Delhi High Court, vide order dated 15.05.2026, disposed of an interim application filed by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) seeking protection against further proceedings before the CCI in Case Nos. 24 of 2021, 15 of 2022 and 28 of 2022. The CCI, in the said proceedings, had directed an investigation into allegations that Apple engaged in anti competitive conduct by abusing its dominant position in the iOS ecosystem. Specifically, it was alleged that Apple mandates developers to use its proprietary in app payment system and levies commissions of up to 30%. The proceedings are presently pending before the CCI for final adjudication, as Apple has not furnished its financial statements.

In its writ petition before the Delhi High Court, Apple had sought interim relief to restrain the CCI from continuing with the pending proceedings and from taking any coercive steps during the pendency of the petition. While the High Court declined to grant the requested interim relief, it directed that the CCI shall not pass any final order in the matter(s) until the next date of hearing and instructed Apple to fully cooperate with the ongoing proceedings.

Orissa HC Quashes CCI Investigation Against Rungta in Steel Cartel Matter for Absence of Section 26(1) Order

M/s Rungta Mines Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 24391 of 2025)

The Orissa High Court, vide judgment dated 22.05.2026, quashed the CCI investigation initiated so far as it related to the petitioners including Rungta Mines Limited (“Rungta”) in Suo Motu Case No. 02 of 2021. In the said writ petition, Rungta challenged the investigation initiated against it on the ground that it had been subjected to the said proceedings without a valid order under Section 26(1) of the Act despite not being arrayed as a party in the original complaint concerning alleged cartelisation by certain steel manufacturers in Tamil Nadu.

On 6.03.2021, a complaint alleging cartelization among nine steel manufacturers, namely, (i) Tata Steel Ltd., (ii) JSW Steel; (iii) SAIL Steel; (iv) Vizag Steel; (v) Tirumala TMT; (vi) Kamachi TMT, (vii) Agni Steel; (viii) Indrola Steel and (ix) Kiscol TMT, was filed by the Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Welfare Association (“CCCWA”) before the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) which was later forwarded to the CCI by the CBI due to lack of jurisdiction. Separately, the CCCWA had also approached High Court of Madras seeking directions to the CBI to register a criminal case in the matter. Taking note of the fact that the complaint has been forwarded to the CCI, the Madras High Court directed the DG of the CCI to proceed further and take necessary action on the complaint ‘in accordance with the law’ within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the same, the CCI convened a meeting in the presence of the DG and directed its secretariat division to register the matter as a suo motu case and directed the DG to conduct the investigation in terms of the orders of the Madras High Court. The DG submitted the investigation report to the CCI on 05.01.2024 and on consideration of the same the CCI directed further investigation under Section 26(3A) of the Act, a report thereto was submitted by the DG to CCI on 11.04.2025. It was only during the inspection of records, Rungta discovered that no prima facie order under Section 26(1) has been passed against it and it had been arbitrarily arrayed as an ‘opposite party’ in the said proceedings.

In the present petition, the Orissa High Court held that the CCI ought to have passed a prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Act before directing an investigation into the matter as Madras High Court’s direction to proceed ‘in accordance with law’ could not have been construed as a substitute to CCI’s mandatory requirement of forming a prima facie opinion under the Act. The Court further held that, in the absence of a valid Section 26(1) order, the DG could not have lawfully expanded the investigation to include the petitioner. The Court noted that the DG in view of its powers may look into additional entities during a valid investigation, however such power may be exercised in the presence of an order thereto under the Act. The Court also found the petitioner’s impleadment as an “Opposite Party” without prior notice or intimation, followed by coercive steps such as search and seizure and summons, to be arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

Orders / Judgments passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLAT sets aside CCI order against Grasim Industries for violation of principles of natural justice.

Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 13 of 2020)

The NCLAT, vide judgment dated 05.05.2026, set aside the CCI order dated 16.03.2020 whereby Grasim Industries Ltd. (“Grasim”) was found to be abusing its dominant position in the market for supply of Viscose Staple Fibre (“VSF”) to spinners in India. In the said order, the CCI found Grasim to be imposing unfair and discriminatory prices, in contravention of Section 4(2)(a)(ii), and supplementary obligations upon spinners to submit proof/details of production and exports in order to obtain discounts on sale of VSF, in contravention of Section 4(2)(d) of the Act. Consequently, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 301.61 crores (~USD 31.7 million). In addition to the said penalty, the CCI also directed Grasim to publicly disclose its pricing and discount policy and to refrain from imposing any end-use restrictions on purchasers of VSF.

The NCLAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the CCI for fresh consideration. In its judgment, the Tribunal held that the CCI had violated the principles of natural justice by recording adverse findings and issuing directions on issues where it had departed from the DG’s findings without first issuing a show-cause notice or affording Grasim an opportunity to respond. Relying on BCCI v. CCI and InterGlobe Aviation Ltd. v. CCI, the NCLAT reiterated that whenever the CCI proposes to disagree with findings of the DG that are favourable to a party, it must disclose the basis of such disagreement and provide a meaningful opportunity to rebut the proposed findings. The Tribunal further observed that this procedural safeguard now finds statutory recognition in the proviso to Section 26(9) of the Act, which came into force on 19.09.2024. Clarifying that it had expressed no view on the merits of the allegations against Grasim, the NCLAT directed the CCI to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after following due process.

NCLAT upholds CCI’s closure of complaint against Kerala State Beverages Corporation for lack of prima facie evidence

Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies & Anr. vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition App. (AT) No. 04 of 2022)

The NCLAT, vide judgment dated 20.05.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies (“CIABC”) and Association of Distillers, Brewers and Vintners of India (“ADBVI”) against the CCI order dated 21.10.2021 passed under Section 26(2) of the Act in Case No. 10 of 2021. The CCI had closed the information alleging abuse of dominant position by Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited (“KSBC”) and Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Limited in the market for wholesale procurement and distribution of branded alcoholic beverages in the State of Kerala. The allegations related to unilateral fixation of purchase prices, arbitrary and one-sided tender conditions, preferential treatment to the State-owned supplier, discriminatory cash discounts, delayed payments, and additional deductions/charges. The Appellants contended that KSBC, being the exclusive purchaser/wholesaler in Kerala, had abused its dominant position under Section 4 of the Act; however, the CCI found that no prima facie case was made out and closed the matter at the threshold under Section 26(2).

In its judgment, the NCLAT upheld the impugned order and held that the Appellants had failed to furnish credible and concrete material sufficient to enable the CCI to form a prima facie opinion of abuse under Section 4. The Tribunal noted that although KSBC’s dominance in the delineated market was not in dispute for the limited prima facie assessment, dominance by itself is not prohibited and the material placed on record did not substantiate the allegations of unfair pricing, discriminatory treatment, or competitive harm. The Tribunal accepted the CCI’s reasoning that the procurement price mechanism was based on cost sheets submitted by manufacturers; that no actual data was produced to show losses, market exit, decline in market share, or distortion of competition; that the challenged preference to the State-owned supplier was disclosed upfront in policy/tender terms and was not shown to have impaired competition or consumer choice; and that the differential cash discount structure was commercially justified and unsupported by evidence of discriminatory effect. The Tribunal further reiterated that, at the Section 26 stage, the informant must place adequate material before the CCI and the CCI is entitled to close the matter where the information is general and unsubstantiated. Finding no error in the CCI’s approach, the NCLAT rejected the appeal.

NCLAT disposes of Meru appeal after unconditional withdrawal by appellant

Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 12 of 2021

The NCLAT, vide order dated 08.05.2026, dismissed as withdrawn the appeal filed by Meru Travel Solutions Pvt. Ltd. against the CCI’s order dated 14.07.2021 passed in Case No. 96 of 2015. By the said order, the CCI had disposed of the information filed by Meru on 09.10.2015 under Section 26(2) of the Act. The said appeal was pending for final arguments when the appellant sought permission to unconditionally withdraw it. Accordingly, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and also disposed of other pending applications.

Orders Passed and Combinations Approved by the Competition Commission of India

CCI Rejects “Aftermarket Abuse” Claims Against 12 Private Delhi Based Super-Specialty Hospitals

The CCI issued 12 seminal orders (Case No. 77(1) to 77(12) of 2015 ¹) following an investigation into allegations of anti-competitive practices by private super-specialty hospitals across Delhi. The informant, Vivek Sharma, originally alleged that these hospitals, in possible collusion with manufacturers, abused their dominant position by compelling “locked-in” in-patients to purchase medicines, medical devices, and consumables exclusively from in-house pharmacies at exorbitant rates. While the matters were segregated to address the specific factual conduct of each hospital including facilities like Max Super Specialty, Sir Ganga Ram, St. Stephen’s, and Fortis, the CCI applied a consistent legal framework across all rulings to determine the existence of any Section 4 violations.

Central to the CCI’s analysis was the rejection of the “aftermarket” theory, which posits that patients become captive consumers once admitted for surgery or treatment. The CCI concluded that for elective treatments, patients typically engage in “whole-life costing”, assessing the total cost of treatment, room rent, and expected medicine expenses before choosing a hospital. Defining the relevant market broadly as the "provision of healthcare services by private super-specialty hospitals in the Union Territory of Delhi," the CCI found that hospitals generally lack the requisite dominance given the competitive landscape of Delhi-NCR. Furthermore, applying the United Brands two-stage test for excessive pricing, the CCI held that the prices charged, while higher than open-market retail, could not be definitively classified as “unfair” or “excessive” under the Act, as hospital services constitute a “cluster” of interdependent clinical infrastructure that cannot be compared to standalone hotels or pharmacies. Consequently, the CCI found no contravention of Section 4 and directed that all 12 matters be closed.

CCI imposes penalty of INR 50 lakhs (~USD 52,447.10) on Manipal entities for gun-jumping in AESL acquisition

In re: Proceedings under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 in relation to notice filed under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act by Manipal Health Systems Private Limited and Manipal Education and Medical Group India Private Limited (Combination Registration No. C-2025/05/1283)

The CCI, vide its order dated 20.05.2026, imposed a gun-jumping penalty of INR 50,00,000 (~ USD 52, 447.10) under Section 43A of the Act on Manipal Health Systems Private Limited and Manipal Education and Medical Group India Private Limited (collectively, “Acquirers”).

The CCI observed that the Acquirers acquired approximately 11.03% shareholding in Aakash Educational Services Limited (“Target”) from its founder, pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement dated 30.04.2025, which was consummated prior to filing the notice with the CCI. The CCI also examined related transactions, including (i) an acquisition of approximately 7.75% shareholding in the Target by MNI Ventures (an affiliate of the Acquirers) in February 2025 (“Blackstone Acquisition”), and (ii) amendments to the Articles of Association of the Target conferring additional rights on the Acquirer group.

The CCI held that the Acquirers and their affiliates had undertaken multiple interconnected steps leading to an increase in shareholding to approximately 58.39% in the Target. The Commission found that these transactions, including the Notified Transaction, were consummated without prior notification or approval, and that the claimed exemptions (including Item 4 of the Combination Exemption Rules, 2024) were not applicable. The CCI reiterated that India’s merger control regime is mandatory and suspensory in nature, requiring prior notification and approval irrespective of whether the transaction results in AAEC or not. It further noted that even if arguments regarding exemption of the Blackstone Acquisition or AoA amendments were accepted, the Notified Transaction itself had been consummated in violation of Sections 6(2) and 6(2A) of the Act. Accordingly, the CCI held that the Acquirers had contravened Sections 6(2) and 6(2A) of the Act. While noting mitigating factors such as voluntary disclosure and cooperation, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 50 Lakhs under Section 43A of the Act.

CCI probe into alleged anti-competitive arrangements in Delhi liquor market

Mr. Mohit And Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 09 of 2024)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 04.05.2026, directed the DG to investigate the information filed by Mr. Mohit (“Informant”) alleging contravention of Section 3 of the Act against various liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in relation to alleged bid rigging in tenders floated by the Delhi Excise Department and anti-competitive arrangements under the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021 - 22.

The Informant alleged that certain manufacturers engaged in bid rigging in tenders dated 22.04.2022, 24.05.2022 and 27.01.2023 for wholesale supply of country liquor in Delhi, including by quoting prices in a narrow range, disclosing financial quotes in violation of tender conditions, and repeatedly participating in such tenders in a manner suggestive of collusion and tender allocation. The Informant further alleged cartelization amongst liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers during the implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021 - 22. In particular, it was alleged that manufacturers used the platform of the International Spirits and Wines Association of India to coordinate wholesaler appointments and commercial strategy; that Pernod Ricard India Private Limited (“Pernod Ricard”) and United Spirits Limited (“Diageo”) reached an understanding to avoid competing with each other and their chosen wholesalers; and that Pernod Ricard entered into arrangements with Indo Spirits Private Limited (“Indo Spirits”) and certain retailers to push its brands, increase its market share, and distort competition through stock mandates, selective credit notes, rebates and financial assistance in the form of corporate guarantees.

The CCI, in its analysis, identified two sets of allegations: first, bid rigging in tenders invited by the Excise Department; and second, cartelization/anti-competitive vertical arrangements amongst liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in the context of the Excise Policy, 2021-22. As regards the tender-related allegations, the CCI observed that the first two tenders in 2022-23 had been cancelled by the Excise Department and that, in earlier tenders for 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, the Excise Department had negotiated rates and supply shares with all bidders. On this basis, the CCI held that there was insufficient material to indicate a prima facie case of bid rigging in relation to country liquor tenders. The CCI similarly found insufficient information to make out a prima facie case of bid rigging in relation to IMFL tenders, particularly since the relevant tender documents were unavailable as they were stated to be with the CBI. The CCI further held that the allegation of a horizontal understanding between Pernod Ricard and Diageo was not sufficiently substantiated to attract Section 3(3) of the Act.

However, with respect to Pernod Ricard’s alleged arrangements with certain wholesalers and retailers, the CCI formed a prima facie view that the conduct required investigation under Section 3(4)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act as a possible exclusive dealing arrangement. The CCI broadly identified the relevant market as the market for sale and supply of IMFL in the NCT of Delhi and noted Pernod Ricard’s consistently high market share. The CCI also took note of material relating to corporate guarantees allegedly extended to selected entities, selective issuance of credit notes, and CAG findings concerning relationships between wholesalers and retailers and concentrated supply patterns. The CCI observed that such arrangements could distort supply and demand, lead to brand pushing, restrict consumer choice, and result in AAEC. Accordingly, the CCI directed the DG to investigate the conduct of Pernod Ricard, Indo Spirits, Pathway HR Solutions Private Limited, Universal Distributors, Khao Gali Restaurants Private Limited, Bubbly Beverages Private Limited, Shiv Associates and Organomix Ecosystems Private Limited under Section 26(1) of the Act within 90 days. The CCI also rejected Pernod Ricard’s request for a preliminary hearing and clarified that the order was only a prima facie direction for investigation and not a final expression on the merits.

CCI rejects interim relief application in poultry sector vertical restraints case

People For Animals (PFA) And Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. & Others (Case No. 15 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 13.05.2026, rejected an application for interim relief filed by People For Animals (“PFA/Informant”) against Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and its group entities (collectively, “VH Group”), which include Venky’s (India) Ltd., Venco Research & Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd., Venkateshwara Research and Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd., Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Uttara Impex Pvt. Ltd., Venkateshwara B.V. Biocorp Pvt. Ltd., Venkateshwara Biofeed Private Limited, and Anuradha Desai, in relation to alleged vertical restraints and abuse of dominance in the poultry sector under Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act. The CCI had, vide order dated 01.04.2026, already directed the DG to investigate the matter. Pending the investigation, the Informant filed Interlocutory Application, seeking interim relief(s) under Section 33 of the Act, namely - (a) directing the OPs to immediately cease and desist from collecting mandatory contributions for industry associations such as the National Egg Co-ordination Committee (“NECC”) from poultry farmers; and (b) directing the OPs and their members to cease and desist from forcing poultry farmers to exclusively deal in the Vencobb and Babcock breeds of broiler chicken and layer hens, respectively.

In its assessment, the CCI found that the reliefs sought were final relief, the grant of which at this stage would amount to pre-judging the issues presently under investigation before the DG. With respect to the specific relief relating to mandatory contributions to NECC, the CCI noted that this issue had already been addressed vide its order dated 14.01.2022 in Case Nos. 09 and 36 of 2017, wherein the CCI had directed NECC to ensure that any payment by farmers remains voluntary. The CCI further noted that Civil Appeal No. 560 of 2023 (People for Animals v. Competition Commission of India) is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the NCLAT’s judgment dated 08.09.2022 confirming the CCI’s order in Case Nos. 09 and 36 of 2017 has been challenged. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744 (“SAIL judgment”), the CCI reiterated that the power to grant interim relief under Section 33 must be exercised sparingly and only under compelling and exceptional circumstances, and requires a degree of satisfaction higher than a prima facie view under Section 26(1), a necessity of restraint, and a likelihood of irreparable and irretrievable damage or definite apprehension of adverse effect on competition. Upon perusal of the material on record, the CCI held that the Informant had not made out a case warranting the issuance of such far-reaching interim directions, as the interim relief prayers were closely connected with the outcome of the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, the application for interim relief under Section 33 of the Act was rejected.

CCI closes information alleging abuse of dominance against Rapido in ride-hailing services

In Re: Mr. Deep Chandra Pande And Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited ('Rapido') (Case No. 47 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 22.05.2026, closed the information filed by Mr. Deep Chandra Pande (“Informant”), Director of HitoHit Solutions (OPC) Private Limited, a licensed aggregator under the Uttarakhand On-Demand (Information Technology Based) Transportation by Contract Carriage Rules, 2020, against Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited (“Rapido/OP”), alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Act. The OP is a ride-hailing platform providing bike-taxi, auto, and cab services acting as a technology intermediary for on-demand passenger transportation and package delivery.

The Informant alleged that the OP deployed private (white-plate) two-wheelers for commercial hire in contravention of Sections 66 and 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that this constituted a calculated market entry and expansion strategy enabling it to offer ultra-low, predatory prices by circumventing costs associated with commercial permits, insurance, and taxes, thereby gaining rapid market traction, collecting large scale geo location and consumer data, and creating barriers to entry for compliant competitors, in violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The Informant further alleged that the OP’s zero-commission model in the auto segment, under which drivers retain 100% of the fare, rendered the mechanism for remittance of GST and State Transport Authority (“STA”) taxes opaque, amounting to a gross abuse of the tax regime. It was additionally alleged that the OP charged fares as low as Rs. 14/km for the first 15 kilometres, and alleged that such pricing was predatory, particularly when compared with the fare structure of Rs. 60 for the first 0-2 km and Rs. 18 for every subsequent kilometre, as recorded in the order under the heading ‘Maximum Passenger Fare fixed by the Transport Authority’, under the Uttarakhand On-Demand (Information Technology Based) Transportation by Contract Carriage (Amendment) Rules, 2024 (“Transportation Rules”). The Informant also alleged that the OP violated Rule 8(a)(3) of the Transportation Rules by externalizing pickup costs onto drivers, thereby distorting cost structures and gaining an unfair competitive advantage; that the OP's platform dispatched e-rickshaws when customers booked autos while charging auto fares, indicating lax vehicle verification and imposition of unfair and discriminatory conditions on consumers under Section 4(2)(a) of the Act. The Informant also filed Interlocutory Application seeking various interim reliefs under Section 33, including directions to comply with statutory tax requirements, correct invoicing, restrict pricing allegedly falling below the fare structure recorded by the Transport Authority, and geo-fence and suspend operations of non-commercial two-wheelers in Uttarakhand.

In its assessment, the CCI addressed each category of allegation. On the use of private vehicles without permits, the CCI held that such allegations fall outside the domain of competition law and are governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the allegations regarding the zero-commission model and opacity in GST/STA remittances, the CCI similarly found these to fall beyond the purview of competition law. On the allegations relating to driver pickup costs and dispatch of e-rickshaws in place of autos, the CCI again held these to fall outside the purview of competition law. With respect to the predatory pricing allegation, the CCI noted that the Transport Commissioner, Uttarakhand had, vide notification dated 15.07.2022, prescribed maximum passenger fares, and on comparing the OP’s prevailing rate card with those prescribed maximums, found that the OP did not charge predatory prices. The CCI further held that, given the nature of these allegations, delineation of the relevant market and assessment of dominance and abuse could be dispensed altogether, and that the allegations remained unsubstantiated and did not warrant further examination. Accordingly, the CCI found no prima facie case of contravention under Section 4 of the Act and closed the information under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of the interim reliefs sought under Section 33 arose, and IA No. 546 of 2025 was disposed of as dismissed.

Combinations Approved by CCI

• 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. 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. ³
• CCI approves the proposed merger of Indovida India Private Limited with and into EPL Limited by way of absorption. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ⁹
• CCI approves the proposed acquisition of shareholding in Ctrl S Datacenters Limited by CPPIB India Private Holdings Inc. ¹⁰

Deemed Approvals

• 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. ¹¹
• 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. ¹²

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. Vivek Sharma v. Max Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj & Ors. (Case No. 77(1) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Max Smart Super Specialty Hospital, Saket & Ors. (Case No. 77(2) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Max Super Specialty Hospital, Shalimar Bagh & Ors. (Case No. 77(3) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. BLK Max Super Specialty Hospital & Ors. (Case No. 77(4) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Max Multi Specialty Centre, Panchsheel Park & Ors. (Case No. 77(5) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Max Multi Specialty Centre, Pitampura & Ors. (Case No. 77(6) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Fortis Flt. Lt. Rajan Dhall Hospital & Ors. (Case No. 77(7) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Fortis Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 77(8) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors. (Case No. 77(9) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (Apollo Hospital) & Ors. (Case No. 77(10) of 2015); Vivek Sharma v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors. (Case No. 77(11) of 2015); and Vivek Sharma v. St. Stephen’s Hospital & Ors. (Case No. 77(12) of 2015)

2. C-2026/04/1410

3. C-2026/04/1408

4. C-2026/04/1403

5. C-2026/03/1401

6. C-2026/03/1398

7. C-2026/03/1394

8. C-2026/03/1393

9. C-2026/03/1392

10. C-2026/01/1373

11. C-2026/05/1429

12. C-2026/05/1428