Competition Monthly - February 2026

NCLAT UPHOLDS CCI'S CLOSURE OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE AND BID-RIGGING ALLEGATIONS IN MSM PROJECT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT/Tribunal), by its judgment dated 20 January 2026, dismissed an appeal filed by Apaar Infratech Private Limited (Informant/Appellant) challenging the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order dated 24 August 2022, which had closed the information under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act).

The Informant alleged the abuse of dominant position and collusive conduct in relation to the procurement of Crystalline Durability Admixture (CDA) for the Nagpur–Mumbai Super Communication Expressway Project (MSM Project), overseen by the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (MSRDC). Informant alleged that MSRDC, by prescribing Indian Road Congress (IRC) accreditation as an eligibility criterion and maintaining an Identified Vendors List, had unfairly excluded competing suppliers and facilitated collusive conduct among approved vendors, in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

The CCI had delineated the relevant market as the procurement of CDA in heavy infrastructure projects in India, and concluded that MSRDC was not dominant in the relevant market. The CCI further held that mere prescription of eligibility criteria such as IRC accreditation does not, by itself, amount to unfair or discriminatory conduct, and found no material to establish bid-rigging or collusion among the vendors.

On appeal, the NCLAT upheld the CCI's findings and rejected the Appellant's contention that the relevant geographic market should be confined to Maharashtra alone, and upheld the CCI's delineation of the relevant market as the market for procurement of CDA for heavy infrastructure projects in India. The Tribunal endorsed the CCI's finding that MSRDC could not be regarded as dominant in such a broadly defined market, since numerous public authorities, infrastructure developers, and private entities procure CDA across India.

With respect to the allegation of Section 3(3) of the Act, NCLAT agreed with the CCI's findings that the entities sought to be implicated as a cartel were either vertically related or formed part of the same economic group. It observed that for Section 3(3) to apply, the agreement must be between competitors operating at the same level of the production or distribution chain. Further, in the absence of any evidence of collusion between independent competitors and given the group relationship, the Tribunal held that the essential pre-condition for invoking the cartel provisions was not satisfied.

NCLAT SETS ASIDE CCI'S ORDER AND REMANDS KAMARAJAR PORT ABUSE OF DOMINANCE CASE

The NCLAT, by its judgment dated 21 January 2026, set aside the CCI's final order and remanded the matter back to CCI for fresh adjudication.

The information was filed by the Tamil Nadu Power Producer Association (TNPPA) against Chettinad International Coal Terminal Private Limited (CICTPL), alleging abuse of dominant position in the provision of common user coal terminal services at Kamarajar Port. Following the closure of coal handling facilities at the Chennai Port pursuant to orders of the Madras High Court, CICTPL became the sole provider of coal terminal services at Kamarajar Port. It was alleged that CICTPL forced users to indirectly pay mandatory additional, unclear charges commonly known as "Coordination and Liasoning Charges" for using the coal terminal to certain third-party entities, which appeared to be linked to CICTPL.

At the prima facie stage in 2016, the CCI rejected CICTPL's contention that Krishnapatnam Port and Karaikal Port should be included in the relevant geographic market. The CCI found CICTPL to be prima-facie dominant in the market for coal terminal services in and around Kamarajar Port, and directed the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation.

However, in its first investigation report (2018), the DG opined that the relevant geographic market ought to include Krishnapatnam Port, and consequently concluded that CICTPL was not dominant, and that no abuse arose. The CCI invited objections and, after hearing the parties, remanded the matter back to the DG.

In its supplementary investigation report (2019), the DG reversed its earlier findings and concluded that Kamarajar Port and Krishnapatnam Port constituted distinct and separate markets, having regard to their geographical distance, transportation costs, and user preferences. The DG found CICTPL to be dominant as the sole service provider at Kamarajar Port and held that the levy of additional charges amounted to abuse of dominance.

Notwithstanding this, the CCI, in its final order dated 9 April 2021, relied on the conclusions in the DG's first report, expanded the relevant geographic market to include Krishnapatnam Port, and held that CICTPL was not dominant, thereby closing the case.

On appeal, the NCLAT examined whether Krishnapatnam Port and Kamarajar Port were substitutable from the user's perspective. The Tribunal observed that port users typically prefer import facilities closer to their plants due to considerations such as transportation costs, logistics infrastructure, and operational efficiency. On this basis, the NCLAT held that the CCI's expansion of the relevant market was erroneous, and that CICTPL was dominant at Kamarajar Port, being the sole provider of coal terminal services.

The Tribunal also noted that the levy of third-party coordination charges appeared to be abusive in nature, but nevertheless remanded the matter to the CCI for fresh adjudication, directing the CCI for deciding it afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

NCLAT UPHOLDS CCI'S FINDING OF BID-RIGGING IN SEWING MACHINE PROCUREMENT TENDER

The NCLAT, by its judgment dated 7 January 2026, dismissed the appeal filed by Klassy Enterprises and upheld the CCI's order holding the appellant guilty of bidrigging and cartelization in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

The case arose from a tender floated by the Pune Zila Parishad for the supply of Picofallcum-sewing machines, where Klassy Enterprises, along with Jawahar Brothers and Nayan Agencies—all authorized dealers of Usha International Limited—were found to have submitted coordinated bids, including marginal price differences, use of common IP addresses, and payments through the same bank account, creating an illusion of competition. The DG found the bidders to have acted in concert, and the CCI accepted these findings and imposed a penalty of INR 10 lakh each on Klassy Enterprises and two other vendors for cartelizing in supply of picofall cum sewing machine in the district of Pune.

On appeal, Klassy Enterprises challenged both the finding of cartelization and the quantum of penalty, contending inter alia that there was no appreciable adverse effect on competition and that the penalty was disproportionate. The NCLAT rejected these submissions, holding that the evidence on record sufficiently established coordination among the bidders and that the presumption under Section 3(3) had not been rebutted.

The Tribunal further upheld the penalty imposed by the CCI, observing that the CCI had correctly applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. CCI and had taken into account the relevant turnover attributable to the infringing conduct.

CCI FINES ALLCARGO LOGISTICS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH MERGER FILING OBLIGATIONS

The CCI, by its order dated 9 January 2026, imposed a penalty of INR 50 Lakh on Allcargo Logistics Limited (Allcargo/Acquirer) under section 43A of the Act, for consummating the acquisition of remaining 30% shareholding in Gati Express & Supply Chain Private Limited (Gati Express/Target) without prior notification to the CCI.

The proceedings arose from Allcargo's acquisition of 30% shareholding in Gati Express from KWE-Kintetsu group entities (collectively, KWE), pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement dated 27 March 2023, which was consummated on 08 June 2023. Prior to the transaction, Allcargo (through its subsidiary, Allcargo Gati Limited) held 70% of the shareholding, while KWE held the remaining 30%. The CCI held that the transaction resulted in a change in control from joint control to sole control, rendering it notifiable under Section 6(2) of the Act.

The CCI took suo moto cognizance of the transaction based on the information in public domain and examined whether the acquisition qualified for exemption under Item 2 of Schedule I to the Combination Regulations, 2011.

The CCI rejected Allcargo's submissions and held that prior to the transaction, KWE's 30% shareholding conferred the statutory ability to block special resolutions under the Companies Act, 2013. The CCI expressly noted that this ability to block special resolutions amounted to a "veto" right, giving rise to negative control. Thus, the veto and reserved-matter rights contained in the shareholders' agreement, which covered key strategic and operational decisions, were considered by the CCI to be control-conferring rights.

On this basis, the CCI concluded that Gati Express was under joint control prior to the transaction, and that the acquisition resulted in Allcargo acquiring sole control, thereby triggering a mandatory notification obligation. The CCI clarified that the absence of actual exercise of control or competitive impact was irrelevant for determining notifiability, reiterating that even negative control is sufficient to attract merger filing requirements.

CCI DIRECTS KKK MILLS AND SANKESHWAR SYNTHETICS TO CEASE COLLUSIVE BIDDING PRACTICES

The CCI, by its order dated 2 January 2026, held KKK Mills (OP-1) and Sankeshwar Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) guilty of bidrigging and collusive bidding, in contravention of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, in the tender for procurement of Underpant Woollen by Ordnance Branch, Director General of Ordinance Services.

The case originated from a reference filed by the CP Cell (Master General of Ordnance Branch, Directorate General of Ordnance Services), which alleged that the two Ludhiana-based firms had quoted identical prices (up to two decimal points) in both an initial 2019 tender and a re-tender in 2020- 21, giving rise to a presumption of coordinated conduct.

After detailed investigation, DG found that repeated identical pricing across two tenders, coupled with evidence of regular communication, shared business linkages through a third party, coordinated timing of bid submissions, and email exchanges discussing other tenders and order allocation, established the existence of a collusive agreement.

The CCI rejected the opposite parties' defences, including claims of coincidence, market oligopsony, and absence of direct evidence, holding that the totality of circumstantial evidence clearly demonstrated collusion. However, taking into account the opposite parties' status as Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), their past association with defence procurement, and the potential financial impact, the CCI refrained from imposing a monetary penalty. Instead, the CCI issued a cease-and-desist direction under Section 27(a) of the Act, directing the enterprises and the individuals concerned to refrain from engaging in such anticompetitive conduct in the future.

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.