Competition Litigation Comparative Guide -

Compare this Guide in other jurisdictions?

1 Legal framework

1.1 Which laws regulate competition in your jurisdiction?

The Competition Act, 2002 – which replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – is the primary law that regulates competition in India. It provided for the establishment of a specialist commission to:

prevent practices that have adverse effect on competition;
promote and sustain competition in markets;
protect the interests of consumers; and
ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets.

The commission established in this regard under Section 7 of the Competition Act is the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

In addition, Section 64 of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to make regulations to carry out the intended purposes of the Act. Some notable regulations include the following:

CCI (General) Regulations, 2024 (superseding the 2009 regulations): These prescribe:
- the procedure and manner of functioning of the CCI;
- the procedure for investigations by the Director General;
- confidentiality regulations; and
- the creation of a confidentiality ring to preserve the integrity of proceedings involving commercially sensitive information.
CCI (Determination of Cost of Production) Regulations, 2025 (superseding the 2009 regulations): These provide for the manner of determining costs by the CCI in certain cases, such as those involving predatory pricing or combinations.
CCI (Combinations) Regulations, 2024 (superseding the CCI (Procedure in regard to the transactions of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011): These govern:
- the procedure to be followed in cases pertaining to combinations of enterprises;
- the value of transactions relating to combinations;
- the manner of issuance of notices;
- requests for confidentiality relating to combinations by parties; and
- modifications to proposed combinations.
CCI (Settlement) Regulations, 2024/CCI (Commitment) Regulations, 2024 (introduced in 2024): These new regulations govern:
- the information to be submitted in relation to settlements/commitments and the procedure to be followed by the applicant and the CCI;
- the manner of determining the settlement amount;
- requests for confidentiality;
- the power to use information provided in the settlement/commitment application;
- the implementation and monitoring of settlement/commitment orders; and
- revocation of orders by the CCI.
CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2024 (superseding the 2009 regulations): These govern:
- the procedure for a cartel member applicant to disclose information to the CCI and file a lesser penalty application;
- the confidentiality of such applications; and
- the procedure for obtaining a lesser penalty.

Recent amendments, including the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, have introduced provisions such as deal value thresholds and settlement mechanisms to address evolving market dynamics.

Further, India is considering a new Digital Competition Bill aimed at regulating large digital enterprises to prevent anti-competitive practices in the digital economy.

1.2 Which authorities are responsible for enforcing the competition legislation? What is their general approach to enforcement?

The CCI is the statutory body established under Section 7 of the Competition Act for the purpose of enforcing its provisions. It is the principal regulatory body for:

investigating anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominance;
defining relevant markets; and
permitting and regulating combinations.

It has original jurisdiction for litigation over competition law violations. The CCI can enter into memoranda of understanding/arrangements, with the prior approval of the central government, with any agency from any foreign country.

The CCI can investigate any practice in violation of the Competition Act, based on any reference made by the central government or a state government under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act. The CCI may also either take up violations suo motu or take cognisance of violations on the basis of information filed by any person under Sections 19(1) and 20(1) of the Competition Act.

The CCI is also the sectoral regulator for matters pertaining to combinations of enterprises and is empowered to:

accept, reject or modify terms of combinations; and
initiate inquiries into combinations under Section 20 of the Competition Act.

The Office of the Director General is responsible for:

conducting detailed investigations; and
preparing a report on potential violations.

These investigations are directed by the CCI from time to time and form a crucial part of the evidence-gathering exercise undertaken under the Competition Act. The Director General (DG) conducts investigations into alleged violations based on:

available information;
documents;
witness statements; and
dawn raids.

The DG's report is then placed before the CCI for examination and the parties to the proceedings are invited to submit objections, prior to oral hearings and passing of a final order by the CCI.

Orders of the CCI can be appealed:

before the NCLAT under Section 53B of the Competition Act; and
further to the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the Competition Act.

2 Private claims

2.1 What types of private claim may be brought for breach of competition law in your jurisdiction?

Private claims for breach of competition law can only be brought by aggrieved persons before the appellate authority (i.e., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)) once a finding on violation of competition law has been rendered by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

Once such a finding has been rendered by the CCI, an affected person or company may file an application before the NCLAT under Section 53N of the Competition Act. This application must be accompanied by the findings of the CCI or the NCLAT itself on the violation of competition law.

The only private claim permissible under Section 53N of the Competition Act is a claim for monetary compensation. Only 'compensation' is payable, which aims to make good any loss or damage suffered by the enterprise or person as a result of:

a contravention of the Competition Act committed by an enterprise; or
a settlement.

2.2 What is the legal basis for bringing a claim for breach of competition law?

The Competition Act sets out three umbrella topics under Chapter II on the basis of which proceedings may be initiated:

anti-competitive agreements;
abuse of dominant position; and
mergers and acquisitions (combinations).

Section 19(1) of the Competition Act covers the following:

Anti-competitive agreements: These include claims related to:
- cartels;
- bid-rigging;
- price-fixing;
- market-sharing;
- tie-in arrangements;
- refusal to deal; and
- other horizontal and vertical agreements that cause or are likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) (Section 3 of the Competition Act).
Abuse of dominant position: Claims can be made against enterprises that abuse their dominant position in the market – for example, through:
- predatory pricing;
- limiting production;
- denying market access; or
- tying/bundling (Section 4 of the Competition Act).

Section 20(1) of the Competition Act provides for the initiation of proceedings relating to mergers and acquisitions. Challenges can be raised against mergers, acquisitions and other combinations that have an AAEC in the relevant market (Sections 5 and 6 of the Competition Act).

3 Parties

3.1 Who has standing to bring a claim for breach of competition law?

Under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) may inquire into the alleged existence of any anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominant position, as set out in Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act respectively, on receipt of information from the following:

any person, consumer or consumer association, or trade association. For this purpose, 'person' is defined under Section 2(l) of the Competition Act to include the following:
- individuals;
- Hindu undivided families;
- companies;
- firms;
- associations of persons or bodies of individuals, whether incorporated or not, in India or outside India;
- corporations established by the government;
- bodies corporate incorporated outside India;
- registered co-operative societies;
- local authorities; and
- other artificial juridical persons not falling under the above; and
the central government, state governments and other statutory authorities.

3.2 Can a claim for breach of competition law be brought against parties outside the jurisdiction?

Yes, claims for breach of competition law can be brought against parties outside the jurisdiction. Section 32 of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to:

inquire into alleged anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position or combinations if they have (or are likely to have) an appreciable adverse effect on competition in the relevant market in India; and
pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act.

This power may be exercised by the CCI, despite the fact that:

the agreement has been entered into outside India;
either party to the agreement is based outside India;
any enterprise abusing its dominant position is based outside India;
a combination has taken place outside India;
any party to the combination is based outside India; or
any other matter or practice or action arising from such agreement or dominant position or combination took place outside India.

This provision embodies the 'effects principle' and allows the CCI to reach beyond its territorial jurisdiction to protect domestic markets.

3.3 Can a claim for breach of competition law be brought against individuals, or only companies?

Under Section 3 of the Competition Act, which governs anti-competitive agreements, a claim for breach of competition law may be brought against:

enterprises;
associations of enterprises;
persons; and
associations of persons.

A 'person' is defined under Section 2(l) of the Competition Act and includes:

companies;
firms;
individuals; and
unregistered bodies of individuals.

Section 4 of the Competition Act governs abuse of dominant position and clarifies that no enterprise or group may abuse its dominant position, although it does not cover individuals.

Section 5 of the Competition Act deals with combinations and refers to:

the acquisition of enterprises by one or more persons; and
the amalgamation of enterprises.

Here, too, the common definition of 'person' under Section 2(l) of the Competition Act applies.

Further, Section 48 of the Competition Act states that where the 'person' contravening the Competition Act is a company, every person at the company responsible for the conduct of its business will be deemed to be in contravention of the Act. The CCI is empowered to impose penalties on such persons – including managers, directors or other officers of the company – if the contravention:

took place with their consent; or
is attributable to any negligence on their part.

4 Collective actions

4.1 Is it possible to bring a collective action for breach of competition law in your jurisdiction? If so, what is the applicable regime?

Section 19(1) of the Competition Act permits any person, consumer or consumer association or trade association to file information before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regarding an alleged contravention of the Act's provisions on anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position. The Competition Act defines a 'person' in Section 2(l) of the Competition Act to include:

individuals;
Hindu undivided families;
companies;
firms;
associations of persons or bodies of individuals, whether incorporated or not, in India or outside India;
corporations established by the government
bodies corporate incorporated outside India
registered co-operative societies;
local authorities; and
other artificial juridical persons not falling under the above.

4.2 Do collective actions proceed on an 'opt-in' or an 'opt-out' basis?

Collective action in Indian competition jurisprudence generally follows an opt-in mechanism, in the sense that individuals or entities must form a group before information is filed before the CCI.

Once proceedings have been initiated, the CCI retains the power to join or substitute parties in the proceedings or to permit a person or enterprise to take part in the proceedings if it is satisfied that:

a person or enterprise has a substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings; and
it is necessary in the public interest to do so.

The CCI also has the power to join multiple information filed in relation to the same case.

4.3 Do collective actions require certification? If so, what requirements must be met to obtain certification?

There is no statutory requirement for certification to be obtained to file information or participate in the proceedings. However, in the interests of time, the CCI may require that a class (association or group) of persons tender common submissions, unless specific permission is obtained.

5 Forum

5.1 In what forum(s) are claims for breach of competition law heard in your jurisdiction?

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has original jurisdiction in matters relating to breaches of competition law and is responsible for hearing and adjudicating cases. Appeals against orders of the CCI are brought before:

the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Section 53B of the Competition Act; and
subsequently the Supreme Court of India under Section 53T of the Competition Act.

6 Bringing a claim

6.1 What is the limitation period for claims for breach of competition law in your jurisdiction?

The Competition Act initially specified no limitation period. In Neha Gupta v Tata Motors Ltd, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) noted in its order dated 4 May 2021 in Case 21/2019 that proceedings before the CCI are inquisitorial in nature. It will not be possible to determine exactly when anti-competitive practices occurred in an ever-evolving market.

In 2023, Section 19 of the Competition Act was amended to include a proviso under Section 19(1) which states that the CCI will not entertain information or a reference unless it is filed within three (3) years of the date on which the cause of action arose. A second proviso was also inserted stating that information which is filed three (3) years after the cause of action arose may be entertained if the CCI is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the information within the limitation period.

Section 20 of the Competition Act, which deals with inquiries into combinations by the CCI, also contains a proviso that no inquiry may be initiated after the expiry of one (1) year from the date of a combination.

6.2 What are the formal requirements for bringing a claim for breach of competition law?

Under Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, the CCI may take suo motu cognisance of, accept a reference from the central government or a state government or accept information filed by any person regarding alleged anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position.

Under Section 20(1) of the Competition Act, the CCI may take suo motu cognisance of or accept information from any person regarding a combination under Section 5 of the Competition Act.

Such information must be filed along with:

appropriate fees as determined by the regulations;
a statement of facts;
details of the alleged contravention; and
supporting documents (in Form I).

6.3 What are the procedural and substantive requirements for bringing a claim for breach of competition law?

Procedurally, the persons specified in Section 19(1) of the Competition Act must file information alleging a violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act (anti-competitive agreements) or Section 4 of the Competition Act (abuse of dominant position) in the format prescribed in Form 1 within three (3) years of the date on which the cause of action arose. The information must be:

duly signed/sealed; and
accompanied by the prescribed statutory fee.

The person filing the information must:

present the facts;
establish that the CCI has jurisdiction to investigate the matter;
provide details of the contravention;
describe the relief sought from the CCI (including interim relief, if any); and
provide details of pending litigation in respect of the subject matter of the information.

If the information alleges a contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, all documents, affidavits and evidence, as the case may be, in support of the alleged contravention may be furnished.

Under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, horizontal agreements are presumed to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC). Vertical agreements under Section 3(4) of the Competition Act do not have such a presumption and are void only if they cause, or are likely to cause, an AAEC (a rule of reason is applied here). The factors to be considered in determining whether an agreement has an AAEC are listed in Section 19(3) of the Competition Act.

If the information alleges a contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, information relating to the relevant product and geographic market and all documents, affidavits and evidence, as the case may be, in support of the alleged contravention may be furnished. The factors to be considered in determining whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position in the market are listed in Section 19(4) of the Competition Act.

The information is required prima facie to identify the possible 'relevant market' (which includes the relevant geographic and product markets) as per Sections 2(r), 2(s), and 2(t) of the Competition Act. The criteria for the CCI to consider in determining the relevant geographic and product markets are set out in Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the Competition Act.

6.4 What are the implications if a public enforcement action in relation to the same behaviour is pending? Can a claim still be brought?

Yes, under the Competition Act, there is no bar against lodging or supplementing information provided under Section 19 of the Competition Act simply because a similar issue is already pending. Any person, consumer association, trade association or government body may file fresh information in writing, even if another regulator or consumer court has initiated action against the same parties for the same cause of action.

In several cases, concurrent proceedings have taken place before the CCI and other sectoral regulators. Examples include:

Brickwork Ratings India Pvt Ltd v Crisil Ltd (Case 47/2019), in which information was filed before the CCI when a party was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India; and
Competition Commission of India v Bharti Airtel Ltd, AIR 2019 SC 113, where there was a tussle between the CCI and the Telecoms Regulatory Authority of India.

Section 60 of the Competition Act grants overriding effect to the provisions of the Act, unless otherwise expressly stated in any other statute. Similarly, Section 62 of the Competition Act states that the provisions of the Act are additional to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law.

6.5 How is jurisdiction over the claim determined?

Under the Competition Act, jurisdiction over competition claims is determined principally on the basis of two criteria:

whether a matter is a contravention or subject regulated by the Competition Act; and
whether the CCI has territorial jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 61 of the Competition Act bars civil courts from exercising jurisdiction in matters relating to competition.

The person filing the information must:

establish that a contravention of the Competition Act has occurred; and
show prima facie that the CCI has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

6.6 How is the applicable law determined?

The applicable law for any competition law proceeding in India is the Competition Act, as it stood on the date of the alleged contravention. Conduct occurring before the Act's enforcement is subject to transitional provisions under Section 66 of the Competition Act, which would have led to orders being passed under the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The effective provisions of Sections 3, 4, 19 and 26 of the Competition Act were enforced as from 20 May 2009; while those of Sections 5, 6, 20 and 29 of the Competition Act took effect from 1 June 2011.

6.7 Under what circumstances must security for costs be provided?

Initially, the Competition Act had no security for cost provisions. However, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has the power to require parties to furnish security for cost under Section 53O(2) of the Competition Act, which empowers the NCLAT:

"to regulate its own procedure"; and
to employ all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Historically, this practice was followed in appeals against orders of the CCI. Until 2023, the CCI or the NCLAT could, on a case-by-case basis, order that a certain sum of money be deposited by the party appealing a decision.

With effect from 2023, the second proviso to Section 53B(2) of the Competition Act mandates any person that is required to pay any amount due to an order of the CCI to deposit 25% of the amount payable if an appeal is sought before the NCLAT.

6.8 Are interim remedies available in competition litigation? If so, how are they obtained?

Interim relief is expressly available under Section 33 of the Competition Act. Under this section, the CCI is empowered to issue interim orders – such as a stay or a cease-and-desist order – where the CCI believes that a contravention of Section 3, 4 or 6 of the Competition Act has occurred or is likely to occur.

The ability to grant interim remedies is a strong ex ante tool that is used during an inquiry by the CCI.

In Competition Commission of India v Steel Authority of India Ltd (2010) 10 SCC 744, the Supreme Court laid down a three-prong test for grant of interim relief:

a prima facie case under Section 26(1);
the necessity of restraint; and
the likelihood of an irreparable or appreciable adverse effect on competition, which the CCI applies sparingly and only in compelling circumstances.

Orders under Section 33 of the Competition Act:

must follow, as far as practicable, Order XXXIX, Rules 2–5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on temporary injunctions; and
may be challenged:
- before the NCLAT under Section 53A of the Competition Act; or
- via writ petitions directly to the high courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7 Disclosure and privilege

7.1 What rules apply to disclosure in your jurisdiction? Do any exceptions apply?

Section 57 of the Competition Act states that no information regarding any enterprise which was obtained by or on behalf of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for the purposes of the Competition Act or any other law may be disclosed without prior permission of the CCI or the NCLAT.

Regulation 48 of the General Regulations, 2024 states that proceedings of the CCI are not open to the public, unless otherwise directed by the CCI. In making such a direction, the CCI must consider whether disclosure would:

result in harm;
disrupt proceedings; or
significantly affect the resources of the CCI.

7.2 What rules on third-party disclosure apply in your jurisdiction?

The CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2024, permit third parties that are not a party to an ongoing cartel investigation to submit an application disclosing cartel activity and their involvement therein, in exchange for a lower (or nil) penalty. The identity of the applicant and the information and documents furnished by the applicant are treated as confidential by the CCI and the Director General (DG), unless the applicant consents to the disclosure.

Regulation 36(14) of the General Regulations, 2024 provides that any person, party, officer or employee of the CCI, the DG or any expert witness engaged by the CCI who is privy to the contents of confidential information:

must maintain such confidentiality; and
must not use or disclose such information for any purpose, except that which is provided by law.

7.3 What rules on privilege apply in your jurisdiction?

Under the Competition Act:

there is no pre-complaint disclosure obligation on either the informant or the CCI; and
a party being investigated has no default right to notice or hearing at the prima facie stage of inquiry.

Once an investigation is initiated under Section 26 of the Competition Act:

the CCI or the DG may demand disclosure from any party or third party that it considers relevant; and
all such evidence will form part of the DG's investigation report.

The DG, during an investigation under Regulation 21 of the General Regulations, 2024, may submit his report in two parts for the purpose of maintaining confidentiality. These are referred to as the confidential version and the non-confidential version. Under Regulation 25 of the General Regulations, 2024, the CCI, by default, will forward the non-confidential version of the DG's report to the parties.

Regulation 36 of the General Regulations, 2024, provides for confidentiality. Under this regulation, an informant may request that their identity be kept confidential. Other parties seeking to keep confidential information provided to the CCI or the DG must:

specify why confidentiality is sought;
provide a self-certification and undertakings; and
state the harm that is likely to be caused if the information is disclosed to the public.

The non-confidential version of the documents submitted must be identical to the confidential version, with the confidential data being redacted in the confidential version.

Under Regulation 36, the CCI may also set up a confidentiality ring on application by the parties to the proceedings. The parties to the proceedings may nominate their representatives to the ring, who may access confidential information relating to the proceedings. The confidential documents relied on by the DG will also be placed in the confidentiality ring. The parties to the ring must also file undertakings that the confidential information:

will not be disclosed; and
will be used only for the purposes of the proceedings under the Competition Act.

The informant will not ordinarily be part of the confidentiality ring and will only be provided with non-confidential versions of documents. However, the CCI may pass an order including them in the ring if this is considered necessary or expedient for the inquiry. The CCI is also required to pass different orders if confidential information is involved, and only members of the confidentiality ring will be served with a copy of the complete order.

Under Regulation 36 of the General Regulations, 2024, confidential information will be segregated from the non-confidential record and kept securely. Details such as the title, docket number and date of expiry of confidential treatment will be mentioned. Material obtained through search and seizure, call records, email dumps and personal information must also be marked separately. Access to this information is either:

through the confidentiality ring;
upon application by a party requesting a certified copy; or
through examination of the case record.

Certain confidential documents are not available to the parties, despite containing information that may be used against them. These includes documents that reveal the identity of:

an informant that has sought confidentiality; or
a lesser penalty applicant that has disclosed the existence of a cartel, since the Lesser Penalty Regulations are separate and take precedence over Regulation 36 of the General Regulations, 2024.

The protection of confidential information is strictly on request and parties seeking confidentiality must justify to the CCI an imminent danger posed to their business or safety in order to be granted confidentiality. Confidentiality is not granted by default and an application requesting confidentiality must be filed before the CCI.

8 Evidence

8.1 What types of evidence are permissible in your jurisdiction? Is expert evidence accepted?

Pre-existing evidence: Pre-existing evidence such as information which is filed under Section 19(1) for violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, or under Sections 6(2) and 20(1) for combinations under Section 5 of the Competition Act, can be used by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for inquiry and investigation.

Information which is already available in the public domain also helps the CCI and the Director General (DG).

Compulsory request: A compulsory request for information (investigative powers) can be made under Section 36(2) of the Competition Act. The CCI has similar powers to those of the civil court in discharging its functions – for example:

to summon and enforce the attendance of the person; and
to call for documents.

Similar powers are granted to the DG under Section 41(2) of the Competition Act.

Expert evidence: Section 36(3) of the Competition Act provides that the CCI may call for an expert to assist in an inquiry.

Similarly, Sections 36(4) and (5) of the Competition Act provide that the CCI may direct any person to present to the DG any documents or information relating to trade which is under its custody or control.

The categories of evidence are as follows:

Documentary Evidence: Written submissions, affidavits, photos, books of accounts and printed material.
Oral Evidence: Statements of parties and witnesses.
Economic Evidence: Market assessment, demand and supply, cost and sale pricing.
Financial Evidence: Financial Statements, Data Analysis.
Electronic Evidence: Audio, videos, telephony and emails.

Forms of evidence under Regulation 41 of the General Regulations, 2024 include:

verifiable transcripts of tape recordings;
unedited versions of video recordings;
emails and telephone records, including authenticated mobile telephone records;
written signed unsworn statements of individuals;
signed responses to written questionnaires;
interviews, comments, opinions and analyses of experts based on market surveys or economic studies or other authoritative texts or otherwise, as material evidence;
certificates;
entries in books of accounts, including those maintained in electronic form, regularly kept in the course of business, including entries in any public or other official book, register, record or electronic record;
opinions of persons acquainted with the handwriting of a person by whom a document is supposed to have been written or signed, as relevant facts to prove the handwriting of that person;
opinions of handwriting experts, fingerprint experts or persons specially skilled in interpretation of foreign law, science or art;
admissions, confessions or acceptance of facts, which the parties to the proceedings admit or agree in writing as proved;
certified copies of any records of an authority, court or government of any foreign country; and
documents, including electronic records, as may be considered relevant and material to the proceedings.

8.2 What is the applicable standard of proof?

India uses the concept of 'balance' or 'preponderance of probabilities' as a civil standard of proof under the Competition Act, as opposed to the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold.

8.3 On whom does the burden of proof rest?

The CCI, when exercising its suo motu powers, bears the initial evidentiary burden of proving a prima facie case of anti-competitive conduct under the Competition Act.

However, should information be filed by an informant, the burden of proving the prima facie anti-competitive conduct rests with the informant. Thereafter, the onus then switches to the opposing party to refute the DG's factual conclusions and legal interpretation.

For combinations under Sections 5 and 6 of the Competition Act, the merging parties must provide sufficient evidence to show that the combination will not harm and is not intended to harm competition.

8.4 What defences are typically available in competition litigation?

The following defences are available against anti-competitive agreements (Section 3 of the Competition Act):

The agreement/conduct does not cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) in India in terms of Section 19(3) of the Competition Act.
The agreement/practice does not prevent or restrict new competitors from entering the market.
The agreement/conduct does not force competitors to exit the market, thus reducing competition.
The agreement/practice does not restrict competitors' access to:
- suppliers;
- customers; or
- distribution channels.
The agreement/practice leads to an accrual of benefits for consumers, such as:
- lower prices;
- better quality; or
- increased choice.
The agreement/conduct may improve:
- production;
- cost efficiencies;
- distribution;
- technical advancement; or
- consumer welfare.
The agreement helps with economic progress, such as:
- job creation; or
- industrial growth.

The following defences are available against abuse of dominance (Section 4 of the Competition Act):

The party does not hold a dominant position (defined under Section 4 of the Competition Act) in the relevant market.
The alleged abusive conduct may be justified as a normal business practice (ie, there is an economic and commercial justification for the practice).
The conduct leads to economic efficiencies (eg, innovation, lower costs, better products) that outweigh any anti-competitive effects.
The conduct may result in consumer welfare gains.

In combination cases (Sections 5 and 6 of the Competition Act), the available defence is that the merger does not lead to an AAEC in India. The CCI may approve a merger with remedies including the following:

Structural: The CCI may direct the division of an enterprise in order to:
- prevent the abuse of dominant position; and
- ensure that market power is not unduly concentrated in a manner detrimental to competition.
Behavioural: The CCI may mandate modifications to agreements or business practices to eliminate anti-competitive elements, including but not limited to unfair or discriminatory contractual terms.

9 Settlement

9.1 Can the proceedings be discontinued without a full trial? If so, how; and what are the implications?

The proceedings can be discontinued without a full trial in certain circumstances:

The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 introduced 'settlement and commitment' provisions (Sections 48A and 48B). The parties can propose a settlement after the issuance of the Director General's (DG) investigation report, but before a final order is issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). If accepted, proceedings are closed with monetary payments (no admission of guilt). The parties can also offer modifications to business practices during an inquiry, leading to discontinuation of proceedings, if accepted.
If the informant (complainant) withdraws the case at an early stage (Section 26(1) of the Competition Act), the CCI may close the matter if no public interest concern exists.
In accordance with Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, the CCI may issue a closure order to end an investigation before a full trial if no prima facie violation is found.
In the case of cartels, parties may apply for leniency (reduced penalties) under Section 46 of the Competition Act by providing vital disclosures. If granted, the case may proceed summarily against them.

9.2 In the case of collective actions, is collective settlement possible? If so, how; and what are the implications?

There is no express provision in the Competition Act recognising a mechanism for the collective settlement of competition damages claim. This is untested in India, and it remains to be seen how such collective settlement would be considered by the CCI.

10 Court proceedings

10.1 Are court proceedings in your jurisdiction public or private? If the former, are any options available to the parties to keep the proceedings or related information confidential?

Proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) are not open to the public and are strictly confidential. Proceedings before the NCLAT are open to the public (through the Virtual Conference mode and subject to the rules set out therein), but submissions filed with the NCLAT are not publicly accessible. Case records may only be inspected by the parties to the dispute. Where confidential material must be presented before the bench, such documents may be submitted separately under sealed cover.

10.2 How do the court proceedings unfold in your jurisdiction?

Initiation of proceedings

Section 19(1) of the Competition Act enables the CCI to inquire into any alleged contravention of Section 3(1) or 4(1) of the Competition Act either:

suo motu; or
upon receipt of any information from any person, consumer or their association, or trade association.

Prima Facie Case

Section 26(1) of the Competition Act provides for the appointment of the Director General (DG) to investigate if there is a prima facie case.

No Prima Facie Case

Section 26(2) of the Competition Act provides for closure of the matter if there is no prima facie case.

Further investigation

Section 26(7) of the Competition Act provides for further investigation after the DG's report has been issued.

No further investigation

Section 26(6) of the Competition Act provides for closure of the matter if the CCI agrees with the DG's report.

Order by CCI

Section 27 of the Competition Act allows the CCI to pass such orders after the inquiry is concluded by the CCI after the DG's report has been issued.

Appeals

Section 53B of the Competition Act allows aggrieved parties to appeal the CCI's order to the NCLAT within 60 days.

Supreme Court

Section 53T of the Competition Act allows aggrieved parties to appeal the NCLAT's order to the Supreme Court within 60 days.

10.3 What is the typical timeframe for proceedings?

Where the CCI is of the opinion that a prima facie case exists, the directions of the CCI will be conveyed to the DG within seven (7) days to investigate the matter.
The CCI will direct the DG to submits its report within ninety (90) days of receipt of the directions. This timeline can be increased if the DG provides sufficient cause.
After receipt of the DG's report, the CCI will issue a consideration on the same within four (4) weeks.
The parties are given an opportunity to file for objections or suggestions within eight (8) weeks of receipt of the DG's report.
After the receipt of objections, the CCI can either pass a final order or conduct further enquiries. The supplementary investigation report from the DG will be issued for consideration within four (4) weeks. This supplementary investigation report is again provided to the parties, which can submit objections thereto within four weeks.
The parties may:
- submit settlement applications under Section 48A within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the DG's report; and
- make commitments within forty-five (45) days of a prima facie order under Section 48B.
Subject to sufficient cause for condonation, aggrieved entities have sixty (60) days from issue of a CCI order to file an appeal with the NCLAT.
Insofar as combinations are concerned, the transaction is considered approved if the CCI does not form a prima facie view within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a Notice. The Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 shortened the overall combination approval period from two hundred and ten (210) to one hundred and fifty (150) calendar days; if no approval is received within this timeframe, the merger is automatically approved.

10.4 What rules apply to the joinder of third parties?

Any party to an ongoing investigation may submit a written application to include additional individuals or businesses as parties in compliance with Regulation 25 of the General Regulations, 2024. The CCI will permit such joinder where:

the relief sought arises from the same act, transaction or sequence of events ('connected relief');
common questions of law or fact exist; and
inclusion is necessary for the effective adjudication of the matter.

This mechanism ensures that all relevant parties are appropriately represented before the CCI, thereby:

promoting procedural efficiency; and
avoiding fragmented proceedings.

The Competition Act permits the consolidation of information. Specifically, the proviso to Section 26(1) of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to 'club' new complaints together with prior complaints concerning substantially the same subject matter, thus integrating related third-party complaints into a single investigation.

Additionally, the DG is authorised to expand the scope of an investigation after its initiation:

summoning and examining any party suspected of engaging in anti-competitive conduct; and
incorporating the findings into the final report.

While these joinder mechanisms facilitate comprehensive adjudication, they may also:

extend the procedural timelines; and
escalate compliance costs for all involved parties.

10.5 To what extent do the decisions of national or foreign competition authorities influence the court's decision?

In India, the rulings of foreign competition authorities may merely influence judicial interpretations in competition law matters. The extent of such influence is contingent upon various factors, including:

the legal framework;
the transaction;
the facts; and
questions of law.

11 Remedies

11.1 What remedies are available in competition litigation in your jurisdiction?

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered to impose and enforce a range of remedial measures to address anti-competitive practices. These remedies are designed to:

protect consumer interests;
restore equitable market conditions; and
deter future violations of the Competition Act.

Cease and Desist Orders: The CCI may issue directives requiring enterprises or individuals to:

immediately discontinue and desist from engaging in:
- anti-competitive agreements (under Section 3 of the Competition Act); or
- abusive conduct arising from a dominant position (under Section 4 of the Competition Act); and
refrain from such practices in the future.

Monetary Penalties: For violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, the CCI may levy a penalty of up to 10% of the average turnover of the enterprise for the preceding three financial years. In cases involving cartels (Section 3(3) of the Competition Act), the penalty may extend to 10% of the turnover or three times the profit for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher.

Structural Remedies (Section 28 of the Competition Act): The CCI is vested with the authority to direct the division of an enterprise to:

prevent the abuse of dominant position; and
ensure that market power is not unduly concentrated in a manner that is detrimental to competition.

Behavioural Remedies: The CCI may mandate modifications to agreements or business practices to eliminate anti-competitive elements, including but not limited to unfair or discriminatory contractual terms.

Individual Liability (Section 48 of the Competition Act): Where a contravention is committed by a company, persons in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business at the time of the violation will be held personally liable, unless they can prove that the contravention occurred without their knowledge or despite due diligence.

11.2 Are punitive damages awarded in your jurisdiction?

Punitive or exemplary damages are not expressly provided for under the Competition Act. Instead, the Competition Act primarily empowers the CCI to impose monetary penalties aimed at ensuring compliance and achieving deterrence.

11.3 Will the courts consider any fines imposed by the competition authorities in deciding on the quantum of damages? What other factors will it consider in this regard?

Since there is no precedent/analysis of this issue, the law remains unclear.

12 Appeals

12.1 Can the decision of the court or tribunal be appealed? If so, on what grounds and what is the process?

Pursuant to the statutory framework established under the Competition Act, the aggrieved party (from the final order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI)) is entitled to avail of the appellate process as follows:

Appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): As per Section 53B of the Competition Act, any person aggrieved by an order, decision or direction of the CCI may bring an appeal before the NCLAT. The appeal must be instituted within sixty (60) days of the date of the impugned order.
Appeal to the Supreme Court: In accordance with Section 53T of the Competition Act, an order of the NCLAT may be appealed before the Supreme Court of India within sixty (60) days of the date of the NCLAT's order.

An Appeal may be instituted on the following substantive grounds, among others:

Jurisdictional or Legal errors: Misinterpretation, misapplication or erroneous invocation of statutory provisions or legal principles.
Procedural Irregularities: Violation of principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) or non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards.
Manifest errors in fact-finding: Material facts being misconstrued, overlooked or erroneously adjudicated in a manner that affects the merits of the decision.
Disproportionate Penalty: Imposition of excessive or arbitrary penalties lacking proportionality to the contravention established.

13 Costs, fees and funding

13.1 What costs and fees are incurred when litigating in your jurisdiction? Can the winning party recover its costs?

Cost and fees before adjudicatory authorities – such as the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the High Courts (various states) and the Supreme Court of India – entail substantial expenditure, including but not limited to:

court fees and procedural costs;
professional fees for legal representation;
expenses incidental to evidence collation, including:
- expert testimony;
- forensic analysis; and
- documentation; and
- miscellaneous ancillary costs attendant to protracted proceedings.

Given the complexity of competition cases and the extensive evidentiary requirements under the Competition Act, the quantum of expenditure is often exorbitant. The adversarial costs associated with initiating or defending proceedings before the CCI, the NCLAT or the Supreme Court cannot be determined in advance, however may range from $3,500 to $9,500 for a proceeding.

The Competition Act's substantive and procedural provisions do not expressly provide for the recovery of legal costs incurred during proceedings before the CCI. However, Rule 56 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 empowers the NCLAT, under exceptional circumstances and with judicial discretion, to award costs to the aggrieved party, thereby partially mitigating litigation expenses. Further, in certain cases, it may direct either party to bear the cost of litigation of the other side.

13.2 Are contingency fees and similar arrangements permitted in your jurisdiction?

Contingency fee agreements are expressly prohibited in India under the regulatory framework governing legal practice. Rule 20 of the Bar Council of India Rules and the Advocates Act, 1961 strictly forbid such arrangements.

13.3 Is third-party funding permitted in your jurisdiction?

Third-party funding (TPF) is not expressly prohibited under Indian Jurisprudence and may be undertaken subject to the arrangement being in conformity with the public policy of the country.

14 Trends and predictions

14.1 How would you describe the current competition litigation landscape and prevailing trends in your jurisdiction? Are any new developments anticipated in the next 12 months, including any proposed legislative reforms?

With the spread of e-commerce and the adoption of new technologies, India's competition litigation landscape is evolving. There is significant emphasis on digital markets and tech giants, with several ongoing investigations against major tech firms.

In 2024, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) invited proposals to launch a market study on AI to understand:

AI market ecosystems, actors and stakeholders;
market structures; and
the potential for competition issues in these markets.

In 2024, to enable the adoption of the lesser penalty-plus regime that was introduced in the 2023 amendments to the Competition Act, the CCI notified the Lesser Penalty Regulations, 2024. These provide a mechanism for a lesser penalty applicant which has submitted an application to disclose information regarding a cartel that is under investigation to submit a second application to disclose the existence of a cartel that was hitherto unknown to the CCI.

In 2025, the CCI notified the new Determination of Cost of Production Regulations, to determine costs in abuse of dominance and combination matters. While the new regulations remain sector-agnostic, they are more in line with international standards on cost determination.

In order to regulate systemically significant digital enterprises, India is debating a new Digital Competition Law. The purpose is to require large digital platforms to refrain from self-preferencing and abusing private information.

Recent judgments of the Supreme Court – such as Hindustan National Glass & Industries Limited, Schott Glass and the decision relating to a tech giant's privacy policy – continue to expand competition jurisprudence in India.

15 Tips and traps

15.1 What would be your recommendations to parties facing competition litigation in your jurisdiction and what potential pitfalls would you highlight?

Companies are recommended to seek expert counsel prior to engaging in any business activity, in order to study the impact of that business venture on the market. This will:

enable deals to be structured in compliance with the law; and
assist companies in mounting a better defence should proceedings be initiated.

Parties to proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) are encouraged to:

assist the CCI with full disclosure and documentation; and
be aware of alternative remedies such as commitments, settlements, and lesser penalty applications, which may be used strategically to minimise the impact of the proceedings.

Business interruptions and severe fines may result from non-compliance with the Competition Act.

Companies are also encouraged to:

adopt policies and provide internal training on how to handle dawn raids, especially in the case of impending investigations; and
effectively train employees/staff on the law and frame internal policies and protocols accordingly.

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.

Competition Litigation Comparative Guide

Contributor