The Supreme Court declined to intervene in Asian Paints’ challenge against the CCI’s probe into alleged abuse of dominance following Grasim Industries’ complaint, leading the paint major to withdraw its plea and face a full investigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear Asian Paints Limited’s plea challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigation into allegations of abuse of dominance filed by Grasim Industries Limited (Birla Opus Paints). Following this, Asian Paints opted to withdraw its appeal.
A Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi expressed its reluctance to entertain the appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld the validity of the CCI probe.
“After arguing for some time, the learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn,”
the Supreme Court noted.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to December 2024, shortly after Grasim Industries entered the decorative paints market. Grasim alleged that Asian Paints, India’s market leader, abused its dominant position by offering arbitrary discounts, coercing dealers, and manipulating supply and logistics arrangements to foreclose competition.
On July 1, 2025, the CCI directed its Director General (DG) to investigate the allegations under Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(d) of the Competition Act. While the initial order was uploaded online that day, it was replaced with a signed version on July 2, 2025. Asian Paints subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the probe.
Legal Contentions
Asian Paints argued that the CCI could not reopen issues that had already been examined in earlier complaints filed by JSW Paints and Sri Balaji Traders in 2022, which were dismissed after DG investigations. The company relied on Section 26(2-A), introduced in 2023, contending that the Commission was barred from reinvestigating the same or substantially similar facts.
Additionally, Asian Paints raised procedural concerns, claiming it was denied a proper opportunity of hearing before the CCI directed the DG to investigate.
High Court Ruling
The Bombay High Court, however, rejected these contentions. It clarified that the unsigned July 1 order was inadvertently uploaded, and the operative signed version of July 2 carried the same effect of directing investigation.
On Section 26(2-A), the Court observed that the provision is clarificatory and enabling, rather than mandatory. It empowers the CCI to close cases where issues have been previously examined, but does not prevent the regulator from investigating fresh complaints based on new facts.
The Court also distinguished Grasim’s complaint from earlier cases, noting that the JSW Paints and Balaji Traders complaints were dismissed due to lack of evidence, whereas Grasim’s petition presented new factual allegations under different provisions of the Act.
Consequently, the High Court upheld the CCI’s direction for the DG investigation as valid and procedurally sound, paving the way for the Supreme Court appeal, which was ultimately withdrawn by Asian Paints.
Appearance:
For Asian Paints: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul were briefed by a team from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
For Grasim: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Case Title:
Asian Paints Limited Vs Competition Commission of India
