Competition Law Updates

COMPETITION LAW UPDATES AND JUDGMENTS

People for Animals (PFA), an animal welfare organization, filed information before the CCI alleging abuse of dominance and anti-competitive vertical restraints by the Venkateshwara Hatcheries Group (VH Group) and its affiliated entities. The VH Group, described as a large vertically integrated poultry enterprise, operates across the poultry value chain, including breeding, feed production, hatchery operations, and downstream distribution.

The Informant delineated two relevant product markets within the commercial poultry sector: (i) production and supply of parent stock of commercially viable layer hens, and (ii) production and supply of grandparent/parent stock of commercially viable broiler chickens, both in India. It was alleged that VH Group enjoys significant market power, supported by its high market share in key breeds (BV-300 layers and Vencobb broilers) and its influence over industry bodies such as NECC and BEPA

NOTABLE JUDGMENTS APRIL 2026

1. CCI Orders DG Investigation into Alleged Vertical Restraints by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Group in Poultry Market

Case Title: People For Animals v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Click Here)

Citation: Case No. 15 of 2025

Court: Competition Commission of India (CCI)

Coram: Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, Deepak Anurag (Members)

Decided on: 01.04.2026

Facts:

People for Animals (PFA), an animal welfare organization, filed information before the CCI alleging abuse of dominance and anti-competitive vertical restraints by the Venkateshwara Hatcheries Group (VH Group) and its affiliated entities. The VH Group, described as a large vertically integrated poultry enterprise, operates across the poultry value chain, including breeding, feed production, hatchery operations, and downstream distribution.

The Informant delineated two relevant product markets within the commercial poultry sector: (i) production and supply of parent stock of commercially viable layer hens, and (ii) production and supply of grandparent/parent stock of commercially viable broiler chickens, both in India. It was alleged that VH Group enjoys significant market power, supported by its high market share in key breeds (BV-300 layers and Vencobb broilers) and its influence over industry bodies such as NECC and BEPA.

The Informant challenged the restrictive clauses in Broiler Breeder Agreements (BBA) and Layer Breeder Agreements (LBA), which allegedly imposed exclusive supply obligations, restricted breeders from dealing with competitors, and limited their ability to sell to “unauthorized persons.” These practices were alleged to constitute vertical restraints under Section 3(4) and abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act.

Issues:

Whether the conduct of the VH Group, particularly through standard form breeder agreements, amounted to anti-competitive vertical restraints under Section 3(4) of the Act, and whether a prima facie case warranted investigation under Section 26(1).

Judgment:

The CCI, at the prima facie stage, accepted the delineation of the relevant markets as proposed by the Informant, recognizing the distinction between layer and broiler segments based on differences in inputs, end-use, and production processes. However, the Commission observed that the presence of multiple competitors in the market suggested that a detailed examination of dominance may not be necessary at this stage.

The Commission focused its analysis on the nature and effect of the agreements entered into by the VH Group with poultry breeders. It noted that the BBA and LBA are standard form contracts containing restrictive clauses that limit breeders’ ability to sell products to third parties and prohibit dealing with competing breeds. Such clauses, in the Commission’s prima facie view, amount to exclusive supply and distribution agreements, falling within the scope of Section 3(4) of the Act.

The Commission further observed that these restrictions could potentially lead to appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) by foreclosing market access, restricting competition, and enabling the VH Group to exercise significant control over pricing and supply. It also took note of the broader industry structure, including vertical integration and the influence of the VH Group in industry associations, which could amplify anti-competitive effects.

While the Opposite Parties justified vertical integration as an efficiency-enhancing model, the Commission found sufficient prima facie material to warrant a detailed investigation. Accordingly, it directed the Director General (DG) to investigate the matter under Section 26(1), including the potential impact of similar agreements used by other industry players.

The Commission clarified that its observations are prima facie in nature and do not constitute a final determination on merits.

2. NCLAT Upholds CCI Order on Bid-Rigging Cartel; Affirms Individual Liability under Section 48

Case Title: Keshav Bihani v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (Click Here)

Citation: Competition App. (AT) Nos. 44 & 45 of 2022

Court: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi

Coram: Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan (Judicial Member), Naresh Salecha (Technical Member)

Decided on: 10.04.2026

Facts:

The appeals were filed by Keshav Bihani and M/s Hari Narayan Bihani challenging CCI’s orders dated 09.06.2022 and 22.06.2022, which had found them guilty of participating in a bid-rigging cartel in tenders floated by Indian Railways for procurement of polyacetal protective tubes. The CCI had held that seven RDSO-approved vendors, including the appellants, colluded by allocating tenders, fixing prices, and manipulating bids through coordinated email communications.

The cartel was detected pursuant to a leniency application filed by another participant, which disclosed detailed evidence including emails reflecting allocation of market shares, agreed pricing, and instructions to submit cover bids or withdraw bids. The appellants were found to have participated in the cartel for about one year (July 2019 to June 2020) after becoming a Part-I vendor.

The appellants challenged the CCI’s findings on multiple grounds, including: (i) illegality in invoking Section 48 against individuals, (ii) improper imposition of penalty on personal income, (iii) lack of proof of agreement and AAEC, (iv) violation of natural justice, and (v) procedural irregularities including absence of judicial member and non-disclosure of evidence.

Issues:

Whether the CCI correctly found the existence of a bid-rigging cartel under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, and whether invocation of Section 48 to impose liability and penalty on individuals was legally valid.

Judgment:

The NCLAT upheld the findings of the CCI and dismissed both appeals, affirming that the appellants were part of a cartel that manipulated the tendering process of Indian Railways. The Tribunal noted that there was substantial direct evidence in the form of emails demonstrating coordinated conduct, including allocation of tenders, determination of prices, and instructions to cartel members.

The Tribunal held that mere receipt of incriminating emails, without protest or dissociation, constituted sufficient evidence of participation in a cartel through tacit agreement. It emphasized that cartels are typically established through circumstantial evidence and that direct admissions are rare. The appellants’ failure to deny receipt of emails or distance themselves from such communications indicated conscious participation.

On the issue of AAEC, the Tribunal reaffirmed that agreements falling under Section 3(3), including cartels, carry a presumption of appreciable adverse effect on competition, which the appellants failed to rebut.

With respect to individual liability, the NCLAT upheld the CCI’s invocation of Section 48, clarifying that the phrase “punished accordingly” permits imposition of penalty on individuals in proportion to that imposed on the enterprise. It held that applying penalty on “income” (for individuals) analogous to “turnover” (for enterprises) was legally sound and consistent with the statutory scheme.

The Tribunal rejected arguments relating to violation of natural justice, noting that no request for cross-examination had been made and that the CCI is not bound by strict procedural rules. It also dismissed procedural challenges regarding absence of judicial member, relying on precedent that such vacancy does not invalidate proceedings.

Accordingly, the NCLAT found no infirmity in the CCI’s orders and upheld both the finding of cartelization and the imposition of penalties on the enterprise as well as the individual.

3. NCLAT Grants Interim Stay on Recovery of Penalty Imposed on Intel; Seeks Proposal on Compliance Directions

Case Title: Intel Corporation v. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Click Here)

Citation: Competition Appeal (AT) No. 6 of 2026

Court: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi

Coram: Justice Yogesh Khanna (Judicial Member), Ajai Das Mehrotra (Technical Member)

Order Date: 16.04.2026

Facts:

Intel Corporation filed an appeal before the NCLAT challenging an order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), whereby a penalty of ₹27.38 crores was imposed for alleged abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

Pursuant to the impugned order, Intel deposited 25% of the penalty amount with the Registrar of the Tribunal and sought interim relief, including stay on recovery proceedings and restraint against coercive action by the CCI.

The impugned CCI order also contained a compliance direction requiring Intel to publicise the withdrawal of its “India Specific Warranty Policy” and submit a compliance report within 60 days. Intel submitted that the policy had already been withdrawn with effect from 01.04.2024 and had been publicised on its website.

Issues (at Interim Stage):

Whether interim protection against recovery of the remaining penalty amount should be granted, and how compliance with CCI’s direction on publicising policy withdrawal should be addressed.

Order:

The NCLAT, at the interim stage, noted that Intel had already deposited 25% of the penalty amount. Considering this, the Tribunal granted a stay on further recovery of the penalty till the next date of hearing, thereby restraining coercive action by the CCI.

On the issue of compliance with the CCI’s direction regarding publicising the withdrawal of the India Specific Warranty Policy, the Tribunal recorded Intel’s submission that such withdrawal had already been affected and publicised earlier. However, it also took note of the CCI’s submission that further dissemination would be in the interest of consumers.

Since the impugned order did not specify the manner of such publication, the Tribunal permitted Intel to submit a proposal outlining the mode of compliance, which would be considered at the next hearing.

The Tribunal also directed that the amount deposited by Intel be converted into an interest-bearing fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for an initial period of one year, with automatic renewal until disposal of the appeal.

The matter was listed for further hearing on 24.04.2026, and the observations made were limited to the interim stage without expressing any view on the merits of the case.