Competition Monthly - August 2026 Edition

CCI HOLDS HP INDIA AND ITS RESELLERS GUILTY OF BID RIGGING IN TENDERS FOR SALE AND SUPPLY OF HP PERSONAL SYSTEM PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES IN INDIA

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), by two separate orders dated 13 July 2026 (here and here), held HP India Sales Private Limited (HP India), along with several of its authorised resellers and certain individuals, guilty of cartelisation and bid rigging in Government e-Marketplace (GeM) tenders relating to the procurement of: (i) Personal Systems Products, including laptops, desktops, workstations and related accessories, and (ii) HP Supplies Products, including ink and toner cartridges and other printing consumables. The case was initiated on account of a leniency application filed by HP India under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act), following which the CCI directed the Director General (DG) to investigate GeM tenders floated by Government procurers in Delhi.

During the investigation, the DG examined GeM tenders, emails, WhatsApp communications, video recordings of meetings and statements of HP India officials and resellers. In the Personal Systems Products matter, the DG found evidence of collusion in seven GeM tenders involving coordination between HP India and its resellers. In the Supplies Products matter, the DG identified a wider collusive arrangement covering twenty-nine GeM tenders between 2017 and 2020, involving practices such as cover bidding, customer allocation and price coordination.

In Personal Systems Products matter, CCI rejected the preliminary objections relating to jurisdiction, investigation, confidentiality and evidentiary issues, holding that enterprises operating at different levels of the supply chain could be treated as competitors where they coordinated their conduct in the same procurement process. On appreciation of the evidence, it found that HP India had facilitated coordination amongst authorised resellers in GeM tenders for Personal Systems Products through arrangements involving cover bids, bid coordination and customer allocation, thereby contravening Sections 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

In Supplies Products matter, CCI rejected the contention that support bids were merely intended to satisfy tender participation requirements, holding that such conduct only created a façade of competition. On the basis of emails, WhatsApp communications, meeting recordings and other documentary evidence, it concluded that the resellers had coordinated their bids and manipulated tender outcomes.

The CCI directed the contravening parties to cease and desist from anti-competitive conduct and imposed a cumulative penalty of INR 138.95 crores (~USD 15mn) on HP India, after factoring in reduction of penalty on account of the leniency application filed by HP India. Penalties were also imposed on the participating resellers and certain individuals (of HP India as well as the resellers) who were found liable under Section 48 of the Act.

Apart from directing the contravening parties to cease and desist from engaging in similar conduct, CCI directed them to organize competition law compliance training programmes and submit compliance reports before the CCI within 60 days of the receipt of the order.

CCI INVITES PUBLIC COMMENTS ON INDIGO'S COMMITMENT APPLICATION IN CASE NO. 44 OF 2025

The CCI has invited public comments on the commitment application submitted by InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo) under Section 48B of the Act, in an ongoing abuse of dominance investigation initiated pursuant to a prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Act. The investigation arises from allegations that IndiGo’s large-scale flight cancellations during the operational disruptions in early December 2025 restricted consumer choice and availability of domestic air passenger transport services, thereby amounting to abuse of dominant position under Sections 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act.

Pending completion of the investigation, IndiGo has offered commitments aimed at addressing the CCI’s concerns in the event of future large-scale operational disruptions. The commitments include institutionalising a dedicated Crisis Management Group, temporarily releasing unused airport slots to facilitate network recovery, strengthening passenger assistance mechanisms, ensuring timely re-accommodation on alternative flights or automatic refunds and compensation, providing meals, hotel accommodation and surface transport where necessary, extending priority support to vulnerable passengers, capping fares within tariff ranges filed with the DGCA during disruption periods, and establishing a dedicated passenger grievance redressal mechanism.

The CCI has published a non-confidential summary of these commitments and has sought stakeholder feedback by 13 August 2026 before deciding whether the proposed commitments adequately address the competition concerns identified in the proceedings.

CCI CLOSES PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ETERNAL LIMITED (FORMERLY ZOMATO LIMITED) OVER ALLEGED EXCESSIVE PRICING AND DRIP PRICING

The CCI by its order, closed proceedings under Section 26(2) of the Act against Eternal Limited (formerly Zomato Limited), following an Information alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Informant alleged that Zomato was abusing its dominant position in the market for online food delivery platform services in India by imposing excessive commissions upon restaurant partners, compelling restaurants to inflate menu prices, imposing an arbitrary platform fee without any identifiable service justification, imposing overlapping and exploitative charges including commissions, delivery charges, advertisement charges and platform fees, and adopting a “drip pricing” methodology.

The Informant alleged that the price of “Ghee Pongal” purchased through the Zomato platform was INR 198 as against INR 105 when purchased directly from the restaurant, attributing the difference to inflated food prices, delivery charges, platform fee and additional GST. He further alleged that Zomato charged approximately 33% commission from restaurants and that its platform fee had increased from approximately INR 2 to INR 14.90 per order.

The CCI noted that the allegations relating to imposition of platform fee, delivery fee and other charges were largely related to unfair prices/charges which may be examined under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the CCI observed that no further analysis of the alleged contravention of Section 3 was required. With respect to the excessive price charged by Zomato in comparison to the concerned restaurant partner, the CCI was of the that the same may not be considered abusive, as selling food items through online platforms includes other services such as platform services and delivery services. The CCI further observed that online food platforms, being multi-sided in nature, charge platform fees and delivery fees from consumers and commissions from restaurant partners, and that restaurants may shift the commission paid by them to consumers by adding it to the menu price.

The CCI further observed that the business model of selling food items through restaurants and through online food delivery services are different and, therefore, the price of a food product may vary between the two models. The CCI also noted that the Informant had relied upon a single low-priced food item of INR 100 to demonstrate an 88% difference in price, and observed that, since the delivery charge is a fixed charge and may vary depending on distance, the percentage difference in price would decline where the price of the food item is higher.

With respect to drip pricing, the CCI observed that the additional charges were for additional services and that consumers could accept or reject the item until the last moment of placing the order. Accordingly, the CCI held that drip pricing did not raise any competition issue, as such.

Accordingly, the CCI found that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act was made out against Zomato and ordered the Information to be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, the CCI rejected the relief sought under Section 33 and disposed of the Informant's interlocutory application seeking restraint on collection of the platform fee and upfront disclosure of all charges.

CCI APPROVES ADANI POWER’S ACQUISITION OF GVK ENERGY LIMITED

The CCI by its order, approved the acquisition of 100% shareholding and control of GVK Energy Limited(Target) by Adani Power Limited(Acquirer). The proposed combination is being undertaken pursuant to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) initiated against the Target under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Acquirer is engaged in the generation of thermal and solar power in India (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Tamil Nadu), while Target, through its operational subsidiary Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited, operates a 330 MW hydroelectric power project in Uttarakhand.

For the purpose of competition assessment, the CCI observed a horizontal overlap between the parties in the market for power generation in India, including the narrower segment of power generation through renewable energy sources and the sub-segment of hydro power generation. The CCI also noted potential vertical linkages arising from the Target's upstream activities in power generation and the Adani Group's downstream presence in the transmission and distribution of power.

The CCI observed that the incremental market share of the parties in the power generation market was less than 1%. It further noted that the Target's market share in power generation was insignificant, while the Adani Group's market shares in the transmission and distribution of power were in the range of [5–10]% and [0–5]%, respectively. Accordingly, the CCI concluded that the was unlikely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.

Accordingly, the CCI approved the proposed combination under Section 31(1) of the Act.

CCI APPROVES HONDA MOTOR’S ACQUISITION OF CONTROL IN ASTEMO

The CCI by its order, approved the acquisition of an additional 21% voting interest in Astemo, Ltd. (Target) by Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Acquirer), increasing Acquirer’s voting rights from 40% to 61%. The proposed transaction was undertaken pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement executed with Hitachi, Ltd. (Seller).

Acquirer is the flagship company of the Honda Group and, in India, is primarily engaged in: (i) manufacture and sale of automobiles, Passenger Vehicles (PVs) and Two-Wheelers (TWs), and power products (e.g., generators, water pumps, and tillers); (ii) manufacture and sale of automotive components for automobiles and TWs; and (iii) research and development activities. Target on the other hand is primarily engaged in the manufacture and sale of automotive components for automobiles and two-wheelers, sale of components for power products, and ancillary research and development activities in India.

For the purpose of competition assessment, the CCI observed that there are no horizontal overlaps between the activities of the parties in India. However, it identified vertical linkages arising from the Target group's upstream presence in the supply of automotive components and power product components, and the Acquirer group's downstream activities in the manufacture and sale of passenger vehicles, two-wheelers and power products in India.

The CCI observed that the Target was already under the Acquirer's joint control prior to the proposed transaction and would continue to remain so following the acquisition. Further, the upstream markets are characterised by various established competitors with significant market shares. The CCI also noted that the customers of these upstream automotive markets are sophisticated automobile companies which possess high countervailing buyer power.

With respect to Power Product Vertical Linkages, CCI also observed that parties' power product linkages were limited to intra-group captive procurement and sales, thereby eliminating concerns relating to input or customer foreclosure.

Accordingly, the CCI concluded that the proposed combination was unlikely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and approved the transaction under Section 31(1) of the Act.