Antitrust And Competition Newsletter | January 2026

In January 2026, India witnessed several significant developments in competition law enforcement and merger control. On the enforcement side, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Competition Commission of India's ("CCI") investigation into alleged abuse of dominance in the Kerala cable television market, reinforcing the Commission's authority to probe dominance related concerns. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT") issued multiple key rulings, including setting aside and remanding the CCI's order in the Ennore Coal Terminal matter, upholding closures in cases involving the Nagpur Mumbai Expressway project and NSE's co-location facility etc. The CCI also imposed a gun-jumping penalty on Allcargo Logistics Limited, and closed information relating to digital markets, film re-releases involving artificial intelligence, and tender conditions in the healthcare sector.

On the merger control front, the CCI approved a wide range of transactions across manufacturing, banking, infrastructure, and steel sectors, along with several deemed approvals under the Green Channel route.

To keep readers informed, this edition provides a concise overview of India's combination notification framework, followed by key insights from recent Supreme Court and NCLAT judgments, important orders and enforcement outcomes from the CCI, combinations approved, and details of upcoming domestic and international competition law events.

Regulation of combinations under Competition Act, 2002

In India, every merger, acquisition, or amalgamation is not required to be notified to the CCI. The obligation to notify is triggered only when the proposed transaction qualifies as a "combination" under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 ("Act"). A "Combination" under the said Section is defined to include any transaction that - (i) involves acquisition of shares, control, voting rights, assets, or merger or amalgamation; (ii) meets / exceeds any of the threshold(s) stipulated under sub-section (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the said Section; and (iii) is not otherwise exempted.

Pursuant to Section 6(2) of the Act, a transaction that qualifies as a "Combination" under the Act and meets / exceeds the prescribed thresholds (without having the benefit of the exemptions under the applicable exemptions) is to be notified to the CCI for its approval and in terms of Section 6(2A) of the Act should not be consummated until the approval of the CCI is received or a statutory period of 150 days from the date of notification has expired. In the event of a failure, a penalty up to the tune of one percent of the total turnover or assets or value of transaction (whichever is higher), for gun jumping may be imposed by the CCI in terms of Section 43A of the Act.

Judgements and orders passed by Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court declines to interfere with CCI's investigation into alleged abuse of dominance in the Kerala cable television market

JioStar India Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 2867 of 2026)

The Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 27.01.2026, dismissed the special leave petition filed by JioStar India Private Limited ("JioStar"). The petition challenged the Kerala High Court's decision affirming the CCI's order directing an investigation into allegations of abuse of dominant position against JioStar in the Kerala cable television market.

An information before the CCI was filed by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited against JioStar alleging that it has abused its dominant position by engaging in discriminatory pricing and offering additional discounts to only certain multi-system operators, due to which it was compelled to price its channels higher than other multi-system operators, leading to a loss of consumers. After considering the information, the CCI vide its order dated 28.02.2022, directed the Director General ("DG") to conduct an investigation into the matter. Being aggrieved, JioStar approached the Kerala High Court contesting the jurisdiction of the CCI on the grounds that the alleged issues exclusively fall within the domain of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The High Court's Single Judge dismissed this petition, and the Division Bench subsequently upheld that decision. Dissatisfied, JioStar then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Orders / Judgments passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLAT Overturns CCI's Ennore Coal Terminal Dominance Order, Remands for Reconsideration

Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 05 of 2021

The NCLAT, vide its judgement dated 21.01.2026, set aside CCI's final order passed in Case No. 73 of 2015 and directed the CCI to adjudicate the matter afresh. The NCLAT further directed the CCI to provide the parties an opportunity of being heard and produce fresh evidence in the matter.

The NCLAT in its analysis set aside CCI's findings with respect to the delineation of the relevant geographic market and consequent findings with respect to the dominance of Ennore Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (previously known as Chettinad International Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd) in the said relevant market. The Tribunal concurred with the findings of the DG in the supplementary report that the location of traders is inconsequential for relevant market definition analysis as traders are not actual users or consumers of coal as they import coal only for trading purposes. Therefore, they are to be excluded from the relevant market analysis in the matter. On the basis of this reasoning, the NCLAT noted that the relevant market definition is altered due to the exclusion of another other ports from the said definition. Accordingly, the dominance of Ennore Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd. in the said relevant market was established.

However, with respect to analysis abuse of dominance, the NCLAT agreed with the findings of the CCI that Ennore Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd. abused its dominant position by imposing unfair "Coordination and Liasoning" charges through third party entities upon members of the appellant association.

NCLAT upholds CCI's order of closure relating to anti-competitive allegations in relation to construction of Nagpur Mumbai Super Communication Expressway

M/s Apaar Infratech Private Limited vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 56 of 2022)

The NCLAT, vide its judgment dated 20.01.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by Apaar Infratech Pvt. Ltd. ("Appellant") challenging the CCI's order dated 24.08.2022 passed under Section 26(2) of the Act in Case No. 24 of 2022. The Tribunal upheld the CCI's finding that no prima facie case of bid-rigging or abuse of dominance was made out against the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation ("R-2"), Nagpur Mumbai Super Communication Expressway Ltd. ("R-3"), Penetron India Pvt ltd. ("R-4"), Penetron International Ltd.("R-5"), and Crystal Deep Seal Corporation ("R-6").

The Appellant alleged that R-2 abused its dominant position by mandating Indian Road Congress ("IRC") accreditation for inclusion in the vendors list for Crystalline Durability Admixture ("CDA") for the Nagpur-Mumbai Samruddhi Mahamarg project, resulting in denial of market access. It was further alleged that R-4, R-5 and R-6 engaged in bid-rigging for the concerned procurement process.

The NCLAT in its analysis concurred with the findings of the CCI that there does not exist any horizontal agreement between R-4 and R-5 as they belong to the same corporate group and operate in vertical levels of the supply chain and that no supporting evidence of cartelization has been provided with respect to the conduct of R-6. With respect to allegations of abuse of dominance, the NCLAT agreed with CCI's finding that R-2 does not enjoy a dominant position in the nationwide market for CDA used in Heavy Infrastructure Projects. Additionally, the Tribunal also rejected the Appellant's procedural objections.

NCLAT upholds CCI's Finding of Bid Rigging Against Klassy Enterprises, Dismisses Appeal

Klassy Enterprises vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 33 of 2022)

The NCLAT, vide its judgment dated 07.01.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by Klassy Enterprises and upheld CCI order dated 17.03.2021 passed in Case No. 90 of 2016. The Tribunal affirmed CCI's ruling that the appellant, along with two other authorized dealers of Usha International Ltd., had engaged in cartelization and bid rigging in tenders floated by the Pune Zila Parishad for the supply of Picofall cum Sewing Machines. The NCLAT upheld the penalty of INR 10,00,000 (~USD 11030.94) imposed on the appellant.

In its analysis, the NCLAT concurred with the CCI's findings that factors such as (i) minuscule price differences between bids; (ii) use of a common IP address of the appellant's cybercafé for uploading all three bids; (iii) payment of tender fees and EMDs for the co bidders by the appellant, with refunds also being routed back to it; and (iv) extensive phone communication between the bidders immediately prior to bid submission, clearly establishes a meeting of minds between the appellant and co bidders. Accordingly, the NCLAT rejected the appellant's arguments that price similarity, shared IP address, and communication could be explained by his cyber café business or local market conditions. The Tribunal reiterated that once an agreement under Section 3(3) is established, a presumption of AAEC automatically applies, and the appellant failed to rebut this statutory presumption. It further upheld CCI's application of the relevant turnover principle.

NCLAT upholds CCI's Closure of NSE Co Location Case, Dismisses Appeal

Manoj K. Sheth vs. Competition Commission of India & National Stock Exchange of India (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 20 of 2021)

The NCLAT, vide its judgment dated 06.02.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by Manoj K. Sheth challenging the CCI's order dated 28.06.2021 issued under Section 26(2) of the Act in Case No. 35 of 2019. The Tribunal upheld the CCI's conclusion that no prima facie case of abuse of dominance or denial of market access was made out against the National Stock Exchange of India ("NSE") in relation to its co-location ("Colo") facility.

In its analysis, the NCLAT agreed with the CCI that the Colo facility does not amount to discriminatory or exclusionary conduct as the same is offered by NSE uniformly to all trading members on a first come first served basis and at standard charges. The Tribunal further relied on SEBI's detailed investigation, TAC findings, Deloitte and EY forensic reports, as well as subsequent SAT decisions, all of which found no evidence of collusion, preferential treatment, fraudulent conduct, or unjust enrichment by NSE. With respect to other conduct of NSE and allegations relating to access via secondary servers, absence of a load balancer or randomiser, and the design of the TCP/IP architecture etc., the NCLAT held the same does not qualify as "abusive act" by a dominant enterprise under Section 4 of the Act.

Orders passed and combinations approved by the Competition Commission of India

CCI imposes penalty on Allcargo Logistics Limited for failure to notify notifiable combination (gun-jumping)

In re: Proceedings against Allcargo Logistics Limited under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002 (M&A/2022/11/01(03)/CD

The CCI, vide its order dated 08.01.2026, imposed a gun-jumping penalty of INR 50,00,000 (~ USD 55147.90) under Section 43A of the Act on Allcargo Logistics Limited ("Allcargo").

The CCI observed that Allcargo acquired the remaining 30% shareholding in Gati Express & Supply Chain Private Limited ("Gati Express") from KWE-Kintetsu World Express (S) Pte. Ltd. and KWE Kintetsu Express (India) Private Limited on 08.06.2023 pursuant to a share purchase agreement dated 27.03.2023. Prior to this transaction, Allcargo, through its subsidiary Allcargo Gati Limited, already held 70% of Gati Express. The CCI held that the acquisition resulted in a change in control from joint control to sole control, thereby rendering the transaction notifiable under Section 6(2) of the Act. However, no notice was filed before consummation.

The CCI noted that the requirement to notify a combination is a procedural obligation independent of the assessment of AAEC, and that acquisitions leading to a change from joint to sole control do not fall within the exemption under Item 2 of Schedule I of the erstwhile Combination Regulations, 2011. Accordingly, the CCI held that Allcargo had contravened Section 6(2) of the Act.

CCI finds bid rigging in defence procurement tenders pursuant to reference by CP Cell, MGOS

In Re: CP Cell, Master General of Ordnance Services vs. M/s KKK Mills and Another (Reference Case No. 01 of 2021)

The CCI, vide its order dated 02.01.2026, found M/s KKK Mills ("OP‑1") and M/s Sankeshwar Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. ("OP‑2") to be in contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act for engaging in bid-rigging in tenders issued by the Ordnance Factory Organisation for procurement of Underpant Woollen.

The reference was filed by the CP Cell, Master General of Ordnance Services under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, alleging that the OP-1 and OP-2, both manufacturers and suppliers of hosiery products had colluded while participating in multiple defence procurement tenders by submitting bids with identical prices and coordinated terms. During investigation, the DG analysed bidding data, emails, call detail records and other circumstantial evidence, all of which indicated coordination between OP‑1 and OP‑2 across successive tenders.

The CCI observed that the identical pricing patterns (up to two decimal places), near‑simultaneous bid submissions, and repeated coordinated participation pointed to a concerted agreement to rig bids, in violation of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, which carries a presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of contravention, the financial condition of the parties, and the mitigating considerations, the CCI directed the opposite parties to cease and desist from such anti‑competitive conduct. The CCI, however, refrained from imposing any monetary penalty in this matter.

CCI closes information alleging anti-competitive conduct in the digital services market

In Re: Preeti Kodwani vs. Sundar Pichai and Others (Case No. 36 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its order dated 05.01.2026, closed the information filed by Ms. Preeti Kodwani alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 by a wide range of individuals and digital platforms, including Google (through Sundar Pichai), Apple LLC, Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., and Wix.com Ltd.

The Informant alleged that dominant players in digital advertising, search, online marketplaces, and website hosting ecosystems such as Google Search, Google Ads, Apple's ecosystem, and major e commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart were restricting her market access by diverting traffic, manipulating digital identifiers, suppressing visibility of her business, allocating market opportunities, and imposing discriminatory conditions. The Informant further claimed that this conduct resulted in loss of customers, suppression of search visibility, and unfair diversion of commercial opportunities. She also sought interim relief under Section 33, including restoration of access to digital marketing and ad serving systems.

Upon examination, the CCI found that the allegations were vague, broad and lacking in specificity, noting that although 23 opposite parties had been named including several major global digital platforms, the information failed to specify the individual role, conduct, or contribution of each. The supporting evidence, including screenshots, was largely illegible and insufficient to substantiate any claim of anti competitive conduct. Therefore, finding no prima facie contravention of Sections 3 or 4, the CCI closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

CCI closes information alleging anti-competitive conduct in relation to re-release of a feature film using artificial intelligence

In Re: Adv. Utkarsh Tiwari and Another vs. Eros International Media Ltd. (Case No. 28 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its order dated 05.01.2026, closed the information filed by Adv. Utkarsh Tiwari and Adv. Kunwar Arpit Paliwal against Eros International Media Ltd. alleging contravention of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The informants alleged that the opposite party re released the feature film Raanjhanaa in the State of Tamil Nadu in August 2025 after altering its ending using artificial intelligence. They further contended that such conduct combined with purported agreements with distributors and OTT platforms amounted to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position in the motion picture industry.

Upon consideration, the CCI observed that the issues raised were, in essence, private disputes between the parties and did not warrant intervention under the Act. The CCI noted that the Informants had failed to furnish any material evidence establishing a nexus between the alleged conduct and any contravention of Sections 3 or 4. Accordingly, finding no prima facie case, the CCI closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

CCI closes information challenging tender conditions imposed by Northern Railways Central Hospital

In Re: M/s Super Medicos & M/s Chemicura vs. Northern Railways Central Hospital (Case No. 08 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its order dated 07.01.2026, closed the information filed by M/s Super Medicos and M/s Chemicura alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by Northern Railways Central Hospital ("NRCH"). The Informants alleged that NRCH had unfairly and unjustifiably enhanced the average annual turnover requirement in its tender from INR 7.5 crore to INR 19 crore, thereby restricting participation of multiple chemists and favouring a single vendor, M/s Kaushik Medical Store. It was further alleged that repeated cancellation and refloating of tenders, disclosure of prices and discounts during each round, removal of distance criteria, and alleged selective negotiation with one bidder amounted to restrictive, discriminatory, and anti competitive conduct.

Upon examination, the CCI found that the enhanced turnover requirement was not arbitrary but was in compliance with the Railway Board's 2023 circular, which mandates that turnover must be at least three times the average annual procurement value. The CCI also noted that the Informants' reliance on Rule IV of the GFR 2017 was misplaced, as that rule does not relate to turnover criteria. Additionally, allegations of favoring a particular bidder were found unsupported by evidence. Therefore, finding no prima facie contravention of Sections 3 or 4, the CCI closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

Combinations approved by CCI

• CCI approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of certain equity share capital in Nash Industries (I) Private Limited by ChrysCapital Fund X, Two Infinity Partners, and Blue Wave Investments Limited ¹.
• CCI approved Tata Steel Limited's proposed acquisition of 50.01% equity share capital of Thriveni Pellets Private Limited from Thriveni Earthmovers Private Limited ².
• CCI approved the proposed acquisition of certain equity shareholding and voting rights of Toyota Industries Corporation by Elliott Associates, L.P., Elliott International, L.P., and The Liverpool Limited Partnership through on-market purchases ³.
• CCI approved the proposed combination involving the acquisition of shareholding of up to 74% of RBL Bank Limited by Emirates NBD Bank (P.J.S.C.), inter alia, through an open offer, preferential allotment, and amalgamation of ENBD's India banking operations with RBL Bank Limited ⁴.
• CCI approved the proposed acquisition of certain additional shareholding in Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited by MIH Investments One B.V ⁵.
• CCI approved the proposed acquisition of 30.58% shareholding in Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited by Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited ⁶.
• CCI approved the proposed acquisition of the remaining 53.4% shareholding of Krosaki Harima Corporation by Nippon Steel Corporation, resulting in Krosaki Harima Corporation becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nippon Steel Corporation ⁷.
• CCI approved the proposed transaction involving (a) the transfer of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited's steel business undertaking to JSW Sambalpur Steel Limited by way of slump sale; and (b) the acquisition by JFE Steel Corporation of a 50% direct shareholding in JSW Kalinga Steel Limited, resulting in an indirect acquisition of 50% shareholding in JSW Sambalpur Steel Limited, to be operated as a 50:50 joint venture between JFE Steel Corporation and JSW Steel Limited ⁸.
• CCI approved the proposed acquisition of unitholding in National Highways Infra Trust by Nitro Asia Holdings II Pte. Ltd. through on-market transactions on a registered stock exchange ⁹.

Deemed Approvals

• Indigo Cove Investments B.V., Bharti Neo Ventures Limited and Haier Appliances (India) Private Limited received deemed approval of the CCI under Section 6(5) of the Competition Act, 2002, for the proposed combination notified under the Green Channel route ¹⁰.

Mark your calendar: upcoming events!

• The Competition Next Gen Summit 2026 scheduled on March 3-4, 2026 in London. (click here)
• 23rd International Conference on Competition scheduled on March 11-13, 2026 in Berlin. (click here)

References

1 C-2025/12/1352

2 C-2025/12/1354

3 C-2026/01/1367

4 C-2025/11/1350

5 C-2025/11/1343

6 C-2025/11/1344

7 C-2025/10/1339

8 C-2025/12/1353

9 C-2025/12/1356

10 C-2026/01/1375

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.