Civil Appeal No. 9205/2026, Velusamy Karuppannan v. Competition Commission of India
Background
Velusamy Karuppannan (the ‘Informant’), a software professional, alleged before the CCI that AVEVA Group Limited and its Indian subsidiaries (collectively, ‘AVEVA’) contravened Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act by abusing its dominant position in the market for industrial automation software (Manufacturing Execution Systems (‘MES’), Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (‘SCADA’), and Historian) through: (i) coercing customers into the AVEVA Flex Subscription model and hiding perpetual licenses, driving higher prices and minimum credit commitments; (ii) restricting upgrades by forcing locked-in customers to use outdated software; (iii) denying market access by locking in customers and preventing switching; (iv) leveraging dominance in Historian and SCADA to compel suite purchases by way of tying arrangements under Section 3(4); and (iv) predatory pricing by drastically undercutting bundled MES solutions to eliminate competition.
CCI Findings
The CCI delineated the relevant market as MES, SCADA and Historian industrial automation software in India and held that AVEVA does not appear to be dominant as the market is highly competitive with multiple significant players including Siemens, Rockwell, SAP, Oracle, Honeywell, Emerson, and ABB offering comparable solutions. The Informant failed to furnish market share data substantiating the claim of dominance and being designated a preferred supplier by a single customer i.e., Nestlé or being positioned as a ‘Leader’ in industry reports does not establish the ability to act independently of market forces, particularly where competitors share the same designation. AVEVA’s claimed 40% market share merely indicates the presence of other competitors and does not, by itself, establish dominance and there was no evidence that AVEVA mandated the purchase of its bundled products as a condition for acquiring Historian or SCADA licenses, as the Flex Subscription appeared to offer a customizable suite consumed on the basis of credit usage. Consequently, finding no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act, the CCI directed the matter to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.
Appeal Stage
The Informant filed an appeal on October 24, 2025 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) challenging the CCI’s Order, however a series of adjournments took place in NCLAT. Aggrieved by the same, the Informant approached the Supreme Court on July 6, 2026 seeking interference for repeated adjournments being granted by NCLAT, thereby defeating the statutory framework which mandates timely disposal of competition appeals. Without interfering with the NCLAT’s Order, the Supreme Court requested the NCLAT to expedite the hearing of the appeal, taking into consideration the appellant’s plea.
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.
[View Source]