Supreme Court refuses to entertain Asian Paints plea against CCI probe

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain Asian Paint's plea against Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) investigation into allegations of abuse of dominance raised by Grasim Industries Limited (Birla Opus Paints) [Asian Paints Limited Vs Competition Commission of India].A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi expressed it disinclination to entertain Asian Paints' appeal against a Bombay High Court judgment that upheld the CCI probe.As a consequence, Asian Paints chose to withdraw the appeal."After arguing for sometime, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn," the Supreme Court said..The case arose from a complaint filed by Grasim Industries Limited (Birla Opus Paints) in December 2024, soon after it entered the decorative paints market. Grasim alleged that Asian Paints abused its dominant position by offering arbitrary discounts, coercing dealers and manipulating supply and logistics arrangements to foreclose competition.Acting on these allegations, the CCI on July 1, 2025, directed its Director General (DG) to investigate possible contraventions under Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d) of the Act. The order was uploaded online on the CCI website the same day and replaced on July 2 with a signed version, following which Asian Paints approached the High Court..Asian Paints moved Bombay High Court contending that the CCI could not reopen issues that had already been examined in similar complaints filed by JSW Paints and Sri Balaji Traders in 2022, which were dismissed after a detailed DG probe. The company relied on Section 26(2-A), introduced in 2023, to argue that the Commission was barred from re-inquiry into the same or substantially similar facts and issues. It also alleged procedural impropriety, claiming that it had been denied an opportunity of hearing before the CCI directed the DG to investigate..However, the High Court accepted the CCI’s explanation that the unsigned July 1 order was inadvertently uploaded and that the corrected signed version uploaded on July 2 was the operative one. It held that both versions had the same effect—directing investigation—and therefore Asian Paints’ grievance on this ground was without merit.On the interpretation of Section 26(2-A), the Court held that the provision is clarificatory and enabling rather than mandatory. It merely empowers the CCI to close a case if it has already ruled on the same or substantially similar issues but does not bar the regulator from considering a fresh complaint based on new material.The High Court also distinguished the earlier JSW Paints and Balaji Traders complaints, noting that they were closed due to lack of evidence, whereas Grasim’s complaint invoked different provisions and presented fresh factual allegations..Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Asian Paints’ petition, affirming that the CCI’s direction for a DG investigation was valid and procedurally sound.This led to the appeal beep the top court..Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for Asian Paints before Supreme Court. They were briefed by a team from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. .Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Grasim. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.