HC rejects Asian Paints’ plea against CCI probe order
With a blow to the Asian paints, the Supreme Court of Bombay rejected the petition of the Indian decision, which directed an investigation to competitive anti-replicist practices, challenging the Competition Commission.
The court decided that the petition was not “merit ..
Justice Revati Mohit Dere and Neela Kedar Gokhale led by a bench on Monday, “We believe that the petition lacks the principle and therefore should be rejected.”
The court noted that any procedural disability has not been shown and that the issue rightly falls under the authority of the regulator.
The legal struggle began after a complaint to the antitröst regulator of Opus, who claims anti -competition applications of Opus, the decorative paint arm of Aditya Birla group.
He put pressure on Asian paintings to retrieve credit, foreign travel incentives and other forms of support, so that they do not stock their products. In addition, the competitor of the compulsory trade partners accused the opponent of the task of returning the coloring machines provided by Parent Grasim Industries, preventing access to transportation and storage services, and even starting a Smear campaign against the new participant.
On July 1, the CCI directed an investigation into Asian paints on 1 July. Asia Paints said he reviewed the order and will receive the appropriate legal application for the July 3 stock exchange file.
Later, the Asian paints approached the Supreme Court of Bombay, challenged CCI’s orders, and argued that a new player was facing investigations every time he entered the market.
In his petition, he tried to suppress the orders of CCI, which was first installed on July 1 and was allegedly replaced with a version that was changed on 2 July.
In previous cases filed by JSW Paints and Sri Balaji traders, similar allegations have already been examined and rejected, as the regulator acted without judicial authority in accordance with the 2002 competition law.
Mustafa Doctor, Birla Opus’s Senior Advisor, announced that the first order dated July 1 was only a draft uploaded to the website of CCI. The second order, which was published on the same day and signed duly signed by CCI members, was authentic version and laid on Asian paints.
The doctor argued that the petition was only an attempt to prevent CCI’s allegations.
Senior advisor Darius Khambata, representing Asian paints, opposed that the company was repeatedly exposed to similar investigations when a new participant joined the market. “Every time a new participant arrives, I must encounter a similar investigation. Search and seizing watches. It is an extremely wide way,” he said.
Khambata argued that such complaints have been rejected in the past and that the defense was mainly opened due to a violation of justice and natural justice, since there was no fair opportunity to be heard to Asian paints.
Asian paints shares are 1.72% lower La2.502.60
