Supreme Court Refuses to Intervene in Asian Paints’ Plea Against CCI Probe

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain Asian Paints Limited’s petition challenging a Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigation into allegations of abuse of dominance filed by Grasim Industries Limited (Birla Opus Paints).

A Bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s earlier order that upheld the CCI’s directive for investigation. Consequently, Asian Paints withdrew its appeal before the top court.

“After arguing for some time, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn,” the Supreme Court stated in its order.

ackground: Allegations by Grasim Industries

The dispute stems from a complaint lodged by Grasim Industries in December 2024, soon after it entered the decorative paints market with its Birla Opus brand.

Grasim alleged that Asian Paints had abused its dominant market position by offering unfair discounts, coercing dealers, and manipulating logistics to restrict competition. Acting on these claims, the CCI on July 1, 2025, ordered its Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation under Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(d) of the Competition Act.

An unsigned version of the order was briefly uploaded online and replaced the next day with the signed document, prompting Asian Paints to move the Bombay High Court.

Asian Paints’ Legal Challenge

Asian Paints argued that the CCI was re-examining matters already settled in similar complaints filed earlier by JSW Paints and Sri Balaji Traders in 2022. Both cases had been dismissed following detailed DG investigations.

The company cited Section 26(2-A) of the Competition Act (inserted in 2023), contending that the provision barred the CCI from reopening issues that had already been examined. It also alleged procedural lapses, claiming it had not been granted a hearing before the DG probe was ordered.

However, the Bombay High Court rejected these arguments. It accepted the CCI’s clarification that the unsigned order was uploaded by mistake and that the signed July 2 order was the operative version.

Bombay High Court’s Findings

The High Court ruled that Section 26(2-A) is enabling, not prohibitory, allowing the CCI to close cases based on prior findings but not preventing it from examining fresh complaints with new material evidence.

It also differentiated the earlier JSW Paints and Balaji Traders cases, observing that those were dismissed for lack of evidence, while Grasim’s complaint presented new factual allegations.

Accordingly, the court upheld the CCI’s decision to proceed with an investigation, leading Asian Paints to appeal before the Supreme Court — which has now dismissed the matter as withdrawn.

Legal Representation

Asian Paints was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, briefed by a team from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.