Welcome to the 25th edition of Keeping Up With Competition. September 2025 has delivered a series of significant decisions, offering essential clarity on the procedural powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and deepening scrutiny in crucial sectors like film exhibition, digital markets, and infrastructure.
Here is a summary of the most critical developments this month.
Supreme Court backs CCI in its decision against Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) (See order here)
The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling, clarifying the procedure for imposing penalties on individuals under the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). This decision came in a case involving the KFEF, where the CCI had imposed penalties on both the federation and its office-bearers for anti-competitive conduct.
A theatre owner accused the KFEF of orchestrating a boycott, pressuring distributors to cut ties, and restricting film screenings. The CCI launched an investigation, and its Director General’s (DG) 2015 report found KFEF in breach of the Act, pinpointing two office-bearers as key decision-makers. Following this, the CCI shared the report with all parties, requested their responses and financial details, and held an oral hearing. In September 2015, the CCI levied monetary penalties and mandated KFEF to implement behavioural and structural changes, including a two-year disassociation for the named office-bearers.
The Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) affirmed KFEF’s contravention but overturned the penalties and directives against the individuals. COMPAT’s reasoning? The absence of separate show-cause or penalty notices for the office-bearers. This led the CCI to challenge COMPAT’s decision before the Supreme Court.
The heart of the appeal revolved around a crucial procedural point: are separate notices essential for imposing individual liability and penalties, or is the existing statutory process, forwarding the DG’s report and allowing a chance to respond, sufficient?
The Supreme Court sided with the CCI, asserting that the Act envisions a “rolled-up” hearing. This means parties address both the findings of contravention and potential sanctions in a single proceeding, after the DG’s report is submitted. The Court found the CCI’s notice to be perfectly adequate: it clearly identified the individuals, detailed the alleged contraventions, requested financial information, and scheduled a hearing by notifying the identified parties. This, the Court concluded, fully satisfied the principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that the CCI’s process can validly combine findings on contravention and penalty within a single hearing. Once the DG’s report identifies the individuals involved, the forwarding of that report - along with a reasoned notice inviting responses and financial details - is sufficient to meet the requirements of natural justice. Section 48 of the Act, the Court emphasised, creates a statutory basis for personal liability where individuals are shown to have directed or participated in the contravention, and separate penalty notices are not mandated so long as the CCI’s initial notice is comprehensive. The Supreme Court also notes that the presence of an appellate framework ensures the review of proportionality.
For practitioners, the judgment affirms that a distinct penalty show-cause is not necessary, provided the hearing process is robust and individuals are clearly informed.
The Supreme Court Declines CCI’s Plea in Ericsson-Monsanto Patent Antitrust Case (See order here)
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition filed by the CCI challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had quashed its investigations into Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Monsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), while leaving the underlying legal questions open for determination in a more appropriate case.
The case arose from CCI’s investigations into allegations that Ericsson and Monsanto had abused their positions of dominance by imposing unfair and discriminatory licensing terms for their standard essential patents (SEPs), potentially violating Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. However, the Delhi High Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that the CCI lacked jurisdiction to pursue the matter once a settlement had been reached between the parties.
This outcome leaves one of the most significant jurisdictional questions in Indian competition law unresolved – whether the CCI can examine allegations of abuse of dominance in the context of patent licensing disputes that are also governed by the Patents Act. By declining to interfere and leaving the issue open, the Supreme Court has effectively maintained the status quo, keeping SEP-related licensing disputes largely within the domain of civil courts and patent authorities.
As Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and connected-device technologies increasingly rely on standardised and cross-licensed patents, the intersection between competition and intellectual-property regulation will likely re-emerge – demanding eventual judicial or legislative clarity on how these regimes should coexist.
A detailed analysis of this case, as published on our blog, is available here.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) upholds CCI’s decision in an appeal filed by Beach Mineral Producers Association (See order here)
In a recent ruling, the NCLAT upheld the CCI’s decision to close a case involving the export of Beach Sand Minerals (BSMs). The appeal, filed by the Beach Mineral Producers Association, challenged a 2018 government notification that designated Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL) as the sole canalising agency for BSM exports. The NCLAT held that the issue related to a government policy decision and therefore fell outside the scope of the Act.
The informants had alleged that IREL’s designation as the exclusive State Trading Enterprise (STE) for exporting minerals like ilmenite, rutile, and monazite constituted an abuse of dominance.
However, both the CCI and NCLAT held that the matter involved government regulation of strategic minerals - classified under atomic energy and defence laws - and thus fell within the scope of sovereign functions. As such, competition law did not apply, and any challenge to the policy must be pursued through appropriate legal or constitutional channels, not under the Act.
The ruling reinforces a crucial boundary between market conduct and policy formulation. When the conduct in question is a consequence of regulatory compulsion or a sovereign decision, the appropriate remedy lies in constitutional or administrative review, not in competition proceedings.
CCI Closes Abuse of Dominance Case Against GMR Hyderabad Airport (See order here)
The CCI has dismissed allegations of abuse of dominance against GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (GMR), effectively closing a case filed by Air Works India (Engineering) Private Limited (Air Works). Air Works had accused GMR of denying market access by refusing to renew its license for space used to provide Line Maintenance Services (LMS) at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA), allegedly to benefit GMR’s own subsidiary.
In its order, the CCI concurred with the DG’s market definition, identifying GMR as dominant in the upstream market of providing airport access at RGIA, while the downstream market was defined as the provision of LMS. However, the CCI ultimately disagreed with the DG’s initial finding of contravention and found no abuse of dominance. It held that: (i) Air Works continued to offer LMS using mobile units and airport passes, showing that dedicated space was not essential; (ii) GMR’s refusal to renew the lease was justified by the need for airport expansion; and (iii) there was no evidence of preferential treatment toward GMR’s subsidiary. GMR had, in fact, reallocated space from its subsidiary to British Airways.
The CCI concluded that the available evidence did not support the allegation of denial of market access. Accordingly, the case was closed with no finding of contravention under the Act.
The CCI’s order underscores its pragmatic approach to assessing “denial of market access” as a type of abuse of dominant position. Even where dominance is established, a refusal to deal or renew access will not amount to abuse if it is objectively justified and does not foreclose competition. By noting that Air Works could continue offering services through alternative means and that GMR’s actions were driven by legitimate expansion needs, the CCI reaffirmed that commercial discretion and operational necessity can be valid defences to alleged exclusionary conduct.
The decision signals a more evidence-driven and context-specific assessment of dominance cases in infrastructure markets – one that distinguishes between genuine expansion or reallocation and anti-competitive foreclosure, while emphasizing the importance of proportionality and objective justification.
The CCI green signals a probe into Virtual Print Fees (VPF) against PVR INOX (See order here)
The CCI has launched an investigation into PVR INOX Limited (PVR), the country’s largest multiplex chain, over alleged unfair practices related to VPF. The move follows a complaint filed by the Film and Television Producers’ Guild of India (Informant).
VPF is a fee that producers or distributors pay to cover the cost of digital projection equipment, introduced to support the transition from analogue to digital cinema. While intended as a temporary measure, the Informant argues that the fee has overstayed its purpose and is now being used in ways that restrict competition.
The complaint was brought up against three companies: UFO Moviez India Limited (UFO) and Qube Cinema Technologies Private Limited (Qube), both providers of digital cinema equipment, and PVR INOX.
While the CCI has chosen not to pursue action against UFO and Qube, citing a previously addressed case on similar issues, it has taken a closer interest in the conduct of PVR INOX. Citing the company’s substantial market share, both in terms of screen count and revenue, the CCI observed that PVR appears to hold a dominant position. Further, it found a prima facie case of abuse of dominance concerning the continued imposition of the VPF, denial of market access, and discriminatory practices.
The order reflects the CCI’s continued interest in understanding how long-standing commercial arrangements in the film exhibition sector operate in practice and discerning anti-competitive conduct in this industry.
CCI dismissed allegations against ICICI Securities and others concerning the authorised person agreement. (See order here)
The CCI recently dismissed a case concerning ICICI Securities Limited (ICICI), the National Stock Exchange (NSE), and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), related to ICICI’s termination of Authorised Person (AP) agreements. The informant, who was an AP of ICICI Securities, claimed that the broker, in collaboration with NSE and BSE, had engaged in anti-competitive conduct by invoking a “termination without cause” clause included in the standardised AP agreement.
The informant made several allegations against ICICI, NSE, and BSE regarding the AP Agreement:
NSE and BSE engaged in cartel conduct by enforcing identical, non-negotiable AP agreements, thereby restricting the bargaining power of APs and hindering competition.
ICICI imposed vertical restraints, such as refusal to deal (as APs were unable to retain or serve clients after termination), tie-in arrangements across exchanges, and exclusive distribution obligations.
ICICI abused its dominant position by enforcing unfair terms, terminating agreements without cause, retaining clients and associated revenue without compensation, and effectively denying market access. The informant also noted that due to regulatory dependence on brokers, termination results in loss of income, goodwill, and business continuity for APs.
However, the CCI found no prima facie case, noting that the standard AP Agreement, including the termination clause, was based on a SEBI-mandated framework aimed at ensuring regulatory consistency and investor protection. As such, the actions of NSE and BSE were not found to violate the Act.
The CCI further observed that ICICI and its APs function within a principal-agent relationship under a regulated framework, and thus, the use of standardised AP Agreements was not viewed as anti-competitive. Moreover, given ICICI’s lack of market power and the existence of several credible competitors, such as HDFC Securities, Kotak Securities, and SBI Securities, providing competitive constraints in the market for “securities broking services rendered through APs in India,” there was no case of anti-competitive vertical restraints or abuse of dominance.
This case also highlights the CCI’s pragmatic approach in sectors where specific regulatory frameworks exist. The CCI acknowledged that the actions under scrutiny were conducted within a framework mandated by SEBI, and thus, any competition-related evaluation must also factor in the intent and oversight embedded in such sector-specific regulation.