The Competition Commission of India (CCI),2 established under the Competition Act, 2002 (the Competition Act), has only been discharging its enforcement functions for the past seven years,3 yet it has had a significant impact on India’s competition regulatory framework, considering that conduct of enterprises (publicly or privately owned – multinationals or small and medium-sized enterprises) across various sectors has been indiscriminately scrutinised and, where needed, penalised.

While the CCI and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)4 have set the ball rolling, there is a growing need for clarity on several procedural aspects (including powers of the CCI at the prima facie stage of ordering an inquiry and that of the Director General (DG) at the time of investigation). There have been a number of cases filed before the High Courts seeking their intervention under their extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution of India, 1950 in order to prevent the overreach or exercise of excessive powers by the CCI or DG beyond the mandate of the Competition Act.

Nonetheless, certain procedural irregularities are unavoidable in the early years of execution of any legislation and are proof of fast evolution or adaptation of a legislation that has been recognised to have a ground-breaking impact on a wide gamut of enterprises (companies, associations, partnership firms, individuals) operating through different mediums (online/brick and mortar) in different levels of markets (manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, retailers).

Although there have not been major legislative changes with respect to the CCI’s enforcement functions over the past year, a recent decision5 of the High Court of Delhi has set aside the prima facie order passed by the CCI initiating an inquiry based on the inter se settlement of the dispute between the informant and the opposite party (the CCI has preferred an appeal6 against the order before a larger bench which is currently pending). Madras High Court has also validated the possibility of a ‘settlement’ between an informant and an opposite party involved in a competition law dispute if it fulfils the criteria laid down therein.7

Additionally, the CCI passed various orders imposing heavy penalties on enterprises for indulging in anticompetitive activities in violation of Section 3 (anticompetitive agreements having an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India) and Section 4 (abuse of dominant position).

In the past year, while the CCI passed only two orders imposing penalties,8 it has initiated various inquiries against certain enterprises in the agriculture,9 electric technology,10 medical devices11 and energy sectors.12 Additionally, COMPAT and the High Courts have passed various important orders which may have a significant impact on the competition law jurisprudence. While COMPAT set aside penalties imposed on enterprises in the aviation13 and pharmaceutical14 sectors, it upheld, with certain modifications, orders passed by the CCI against enterprises involved in the insurance sector (for indulging in bid rigging),15 and in the automotive sector16 (for alleged anticompetitive conduct in the automotive aftermarkets).

In a significant ruling in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India & Ors,17 a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi upheld the CCI’s jurisdiction to initiate inquiries in cases where the alleged anticompetitive conduct may arise due to exercise of intellectual property rights. In Oriental Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India & Anr,18 the High Court of Delhi upheld an individual’s right to be accompanied by a lawyer when summoned by the Director General, the CCI’s investigating wing.


Private antitrust actions are governed by the Competition Act19 and the regulations framed therein.20 The provisions of the Competition Act do not bar the application of any other law.21 However, the Competition Act expressly bars the civil courts from accepting any suits or proceedings in respect of any matter that the CCI or COMPAT is empowered to determine, which, in the case of COMPAT, includes compensation applications by aggrieved parties.22

Section 19(1) empowers the CCI to initiate inquiries into anticompetitive agreements or abuse of dominant position of an enterprise either on its own motion or upon receipt of information from any person, consumer or their associations or trade association or on reference from central or state government or a statutory authority.23 A decision by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Google Inc & Ors v. CCI & Ors24 also clarifies the CCI’s inherent powers to review or recall an order decided under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act (initiating an inquiry) and a party’s right to seek relief from such order, on certain specified grounds, by applying for a recall or review before the CCI and, subsequently, through a writ petition before the High Court. Section 33 of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to temporarily restrain any party from committing or continuing any act in violation of the Competition Act until the inquiry is concluded or further orders are issued.25 The CCI also has the power to impose a lesser penalty, in enforcement proceedings, where ‘full, true and vital disclosures’ are made by the person cooperating with the cartel investigation.26 Section 46 of the Competition Act read with the CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations27 prescribes the applicable procedure.

An application for compensation can be made before COMPAT under Section 53N of the Competition Act. Furthermore, an application can be made to COMPAT under Sections 42A and 53Q(2) for recovery of compensation from any enterprise for any loss or damage shown to have been suffered as a result of the contravention of the orders of the CCI or COMPAT.

As present, COMPAT has pending two compensation applications28 filed by parties under Section 53N of the Competition Act. However, COMPAT has yet to render a final view on those applications.

The limitation period for an appeal before COMPAT is prescribed by the Competition Act. Section 53B provides that any person aggrieved by the CCI order can file an appeal before COMPAT within 60 days of the communication of the order’s issuance. Further, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court of India against the orders passed by COMPAT within 60 days of the communication of the order’s issuance.29 Since the Competition Act is silent on the limitation period applicable to filing of an application for compensation, the ‘doctrine of laches’ would prohibit the parties from bringing an action after an unjustifiable and unreasonable delay.30 However, if the information filed by the informant is in the nature of a continuing violation, the limitation period would not bar the filing of such information.31


Article 245(2) of the Constitution provides that no law made by the Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extraterritorial operation. Further, Section 32 of the Competition Act provides the CCI with the power to inquire into activities having an adverse effect on competition in India, even though the enterprise or party is outside India or the practice arising out of an anticompetitive agreement or abuse of dominant position has taken place outside India. Section 18 of the Competition Act also empowers the CCI to enter into any memorandum of understanding (MoU) or arrangement with any agency of any foreign country, with the prior approval of the Central Government. The issue of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the CCI is a subject of dispute in the inquiries initiated against Google Inc32 by the CCI.


The Competition Act allows any person to give information to the CCI regarding an alleged contravention, the proceedings are not considered to be a private dispute and the informant’s role is generally considered to be a medium of information for the CCI. When information is filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act and the CCI is of the opinion that a prima facie case of contravention of the Competition Act is made out, an investigation could be directed irrespective of whether an informant withdraws at a later stage.33 The identity of the informant can also be kept anonymous during the investigation.34

However, COMPAT has altered this legal position by suggesting that proceedings under the Competition Act can be treated on the same level with other disputes (civil or criminal) pending between the informant and the opposing parties and the same proceedings would be deemed to have an impact on the competition law proceedings, if any.35 Nonetheless, CCI has consistently held that the informant would not have an impact on the merits of the decision as an informant is only a medium through which the CCI is made aware of anticompetitive conduct.36 Thus, a Supreme Court decision is needed to clarify the position on the standing of an informant.

Any aggrieved party having suffered loss or damage in India (either because of anticompetitive activities or non-compliance with the CCI or COMPAT order) may file an application before COMPAT or the Supreme Court for compensation.37 Further, an enterprise (including a person, government or an association) may file an application (in the prescribed manner) before COMPAT for an award of compensation by establishing the loss or damage suffered by it.


The Competition Act does not provide for any pre-trial discovery procedures. Any evidence collected by the DG of the CCI and used while preparing the investigation report is placed before the CCI and then made available to all the concerned parties, subject to the legitimate claim of confidentiality.38

Although the CCI has the power to regulate its own procedures, it must be guided by the principles of natural justice.39 Section 36(2) of the Competition Act empowers the CCI as well as the DG40 to exercise the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code in respect of discovery and production of documents, requiring evidence on affidavit, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents and requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office subject to the provisions of Section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act). The Evidence Act governs the admissibility of evidence including pre-existing evidence under Section 19(1), evidence from experts under Section 36(3), 36(4) and 36(5) and evidence from search and seizure procedure under Section 41(3). Categories of evidence admissible can be documentary, oral, economic and financial analysis.

The CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 also contain provisions on confidentiality,41 inspection of documents,42 taking of evidence,43 issue of summons44 and commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.45 Further, there are several cases that are pending adjudication before the High Courts on the issue of powers of the DG in relation to the rights of the parties during the process of investigation.46


The CCI may call upon experts from the fields of economics, commerce, accountancy international trade or from any other discipline as it may deem fit for the purpose of conducting an inquiry.47 It may also engage an expert to assist it in the discharge of its functions.48 The CCI has also framed regulations to govern the procedure for its engagement.49


Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to inquire into alleged contraventions of provisions specified in Sections 3(1) or 4(1) either on its own motion or on receipt of information from any person, consumer, or their association or trade associations. In terms of compensation applications to be filed under Section 53N, subsection (4) thereof clearly allows one or more persons to file an application for the benefit of other interested persons. Therefore class actions can be taken by consumer associations, trade associations, a body of individuals, a cooperative society, a Hindu undivided family, non-governmental association or any trust. Class actions can also be taken under Section 53N(4) of the Competition Act whereby one or more persons on behalf of numerous persons with the same interest in filing a class action can file an application with the permission of COMPAT, on behalf or for the benefit of all the interested persons.


Section 27 of the Competition Act empowers the CCI to pass orders that include penalties after conducting an inquiry into agreements that are in violation of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Competition Act. The CCI also has the power to impose a lesser penalty if full and vital disclosure is made by a lesser penalty applicant in case of a cartel.50

Penalties can also be imposed if the orders51 or directions issued by DG and the CCI52 are not complied with. Any person or enterprise may file an application before COMPAT for recovery of damages.53 An application for claiming damages can be filed before COMPAT under Sections 53N (in an appeal arising from findings of the CCI or COMPAT), 42A (for recovery of damages suffered by the plaintiff) and
53Q (2) (damages suffered due to inability of the judgment debtor to comply with the CCI orders) of the Competition Act. Although the Competition Act is silent about the test that is to be applied in reviewing such applications, the CCI indicates that general civil law principles of irreparable or irretrievable harm are used.


There is currently no pass-on defence in India. However, Explanation (b) to Section 53N of the Competition Act clarifies that when deciding compensation applications, COMPAT must be concerned with ‘determining the eligibility and quantum of compensation due to a person applying for the same’. Therefore, the pass-on defence may be taken by a respondent to contend that since the applicant has passed on the loss or damage, if any, caused to it, it is not ‘eligible’ for any compensation.


The Competition Act does not provide any explicit limitation prohibiting the initiation of a private action if there has been an enforcement action with respect to the same. However, under Section 61 of the Competition Act, the civil courts’ jurisdiction over any matter which the CCI or COMPAT is empowered to determine (which, in the case of COMPAT, includes compensation applications by aggrieved parties) is barred.


Although the concept of privileged communications is not covered by the Competition Act, the Evidence Act provides for protection of privileged professional communications between attorney and client. Section 126 of the Evidence Act provides the scope of attorney–client privilege and restricts attorneys from disclosing any communication exchanged with the client or stating the contents or condition of documents in his or her possession. However, this privilege would not apply in situations where a crime or a fraud has been committed during the period of attorney’s engagement by the client.

The privilege applicable under Section 126 of the Evidence Act is extended to the interpreters, clerks and employees of the legal adviser by Section 127 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 128 of the Evidence Act, the legal adviser is bound by Section 126 of the Evidence Act unless the client calls the legal adviser as a witness and questions him or her on the information. Moreover, Section 129 of the Evidence Act provides that no one shall be compelled to disclose to the court any confidential communication that has taken place with his or her legal professional adviser, unless the latter offers him or herself as a witness. Moreover, the application of these provisions to leniency applications is yet to be tested since no case has been decided.


Although there is no express provision under the Competition Act that prescribes the settlement procedure, a recent decision passed by the High Court of Delhi upheld the possibility of settlements between an informant and opposite party regarding an antitrust dispute and held that ‘the basis of information’ furnished by the informant ‘cannot survive’ after the informant itself has withdrawn the said information and settled the case with the opposite party. However, the decision also held that if, notwithstanding the settlement, the CCI ‘feels that any action is required’ against the opposite party for anticompetitive conduct, the CCI cannot be barred from doing so. The Madras High Court decision held that it is possible to allow compromises and settlements to be reached between the parties provided it ‘would not lead to the continuance of anticompetitive practices, would not allow abuse of dominant position to continue or would not be prejudicial to the interest of consumers or freedom of trade’.54 The High Court further held that a memorandum of compromise or settlement could be filed before the CCI so that it can adjudicate the acceptance of the same with or without modifications.55 The High Court held that the CCI’s powers under Section 27(g) of the Competition Act allows the CCI to accept such settlements.


The Competition Act in India does not empower the CCI or COMPAT to direct the parties to resort to arbitration or any other alternate dispute resolution mechanism. Significantly, the High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. CCI & Ors56 has held that existence of an arbitration agreement is not relevant for the purposes of competition law proceedings under the Competition Act. However, given the specific provision for adjudication of private antitrust claims by Section 53N of the Competition Act, these disputes may not be termed as arbitrable.


Although the Competition Act does not provide for indemnification or contribution from third parties, co-defendants and cross-defendants, such situations could arise in the future, especially where suo moto cognisance or investigation by authorities could implead third parties in the same sector.57


After the current competition law legislation came into operation, the government of India constituted an expert committee in 2011 to suggest changes to the existing regime. However, the Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2012 lapsed before it could be passed by the lower house of the Parliament.58

Nonetheless, the competition law regime in India is undergoing tremendous change and the CCI is actively working with the government of India as well as governments abroad to achieve its goal of furthering economic development by preventing anticompetitive practices and promoting fair competition.

With an increase in online spending by consumers, there has also been an increase in the information filed before the CCI against a number of e-commerce companies. While some cases have been closed,59 the investigation in some of these cases is yet to be concluded.60 It will be interesting to see how the CCI will deal with some of these cases. The automotive sector (including spare parts manufacturers) is likely to be closely scrutinised by the CCI.

Antitrust jurisprudence in India continues to develop but there are regulatory issues that need to be addressed. The issue of the CCI’s jurisdiction in dealing with matters such as those involving intellectual property, though decided by a single judge of the High Court of Delhi, continues to be the subject of debate due to the appeal preferred by the opposite party.61 Another area of concern being dealt with by the superior courts of record is that of the extent of the powers of the DG to conduct an investigation.62 Although the Delhi High Court has held63 that the CCI should decide on the preliminary jurisdictional question and confine its hearing to that subject matter before proceeding with the matter on the merits, a consistent, uniform application of this principle has yet to be judicially endorsed.

Lastly, with the CCI adopting a proactive approach in imposing penalties on companies violating the provisions of the Competition Act, there is a need to frame guidelines on the imposition of penalties in the interests of transparency and consistency. The Supreme Court of India is likely to pass a judgment on the issue relating to ‘proportionality’ and quantum of penalty especially relating to ‘relevant turnover’, which will have a huge impact on pending and future cases.

While there are certain changes needed, the future of competition law regulation in India seems positive, with the CCI adopting a proactive, indiscriminate stance towards promoting competition and COMPAT and the High Courts working to ensure that the CCI and the DG pursue their ends in accordance with their powers and duties under the Competition Act.

1 Vandana Shroff and Rahul Goel are partners at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

2 The CCI acts as the market regulator for prevention and regulation of conduct having an adverse effect on competition in India.

3 Notification dated 15 May 2009 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

4 COMPAT is a statutory tribunal that decides appeals from the decisions of the CCI.

5 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India & Anr, High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5604/2015, Order dated 14 December 2015.

6 Competition Commission of India v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson & Anr, High Court of Delhi, LPA 550 of 2016.

7 The Tamil Nadu Film Exhibitors Association v. CCI & Ors., AIR 2015 Mad 106.

8 M/s Maruti & Company v. Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association & Others, Case No. 71 of 2013, Order dated 28 July 2016 (COMPAT has set aside the order and the penalty as regards one of the opposite parties, appeals regarding the others are pending); the CCI has also affirmed its penalties in the cement sector upon its order being remanded by COMPAT (Case No. 29/2010, RTPE No. 52/2006), Orders dated 31 August 2016.

9 Inquiries were initiated in eight cases brought against Monsanto for abuse of dominance relating to its BT Cotton technology. (Ref. No. 02 of 2015, Case No. 107 of 2015, Case No. 03 of 2016, Ref. No. 01 of 2016, Case No. 10 of 2016, Case No. 37 of 2016, Case No. 38 of 2016, Case No. 39 of 2016) [Parties have challenged the initiation of inquiry as regards their office bearers before the High Court of Delhi].

10 InPhase Power Technologies Private Limited v. ABB India Limited, Case No. 12 of 2016, Order dated 9 June 2016.

11 M/s Esaote S.p.A v. Esaote Asia Pacific Diagnostic Private Limited, Case No. 09 of 2016, Order dated 23 August 2016.

12 Rico Auto Industries Limited, In Re: Omax Autos Limited, In Re: Omax Autos Limited, In Re: Rico Auto Industries Limited, In Re: Rico Castings Limited v. GAIL (India) Limited, Cases No. 16 of 2016, 17 of 2016, 18 of 2016, 19 of 2016 & 20 of 2016, Order dated 3 October 2016.

13 Express Industry Council of India v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Others, Case No. 30 of 2013, decided on 17 November 2015. Appeal No. 07/2016, 08/2016, 11/2016 allowed by COMPAT on 18 April 2016.

14 M/s Bio-Med Private Limited v. Union of India & others, Case No. 26 of 2013, decided on 4 June 2015. Appeal No. 85 of 2015 (allowed by COMPAT on 8 November 2016).

15 In Re: Cartelization by public sector insurance companies in rigging the bids submitted in response to the tenders floated by the Government of Kerala for selecting insurance service provider for Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, Suo Moto Case No. 02 of 2014, decided on 10 July 2015. Appeal No. 94/2015 (partly allowed by COMPAT on 9 December 2016).

16 In Re: Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Others., Case No. 03 of 2011, decided on 27 July 2015 (in continuation of the CCI’s earlier order dated 25 August 2014) Appeal No. 60/2014, 61/2014 and 62/2014 disposed of by COMPAT on 9 December 2016.

17 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India & Ors, 2016 CompLR 497 (Delhi). [Appeal preferred by the opposite parties pending before a larger bench.]

18 Oriental Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Competition Commission Of India & Anr, 2016 CompLR 611 (Delhi). [Appeal preferred by the CCI pending before a larger bench.]

19 Section 53N, Competition Act, 2002.

20 Section 64, Competition Act, 2002.

21 Section 62, Competition Act, 2002.

22 Section 61, Competition Act, 2002.

23 Section 19(1), Competition Act, 2002.

24 Google Inc. & Ors. v. CCI & Ors., LPA No. 733/2014, Delhi High Court, Order dated 27 April 2015.

25 Section 33, Competition Act, 2002.

26 Section 46, Competition Act, 2002.

27 Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009.

28 MCX Stock Exchange Ltd v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Compensation Application No. 01/2014 (based upon the judgment dated 5 August 2014 in Appeal No. 15/2011); Amit Jain v. DLF Ltd, Compensation Application No. 01/2015 in Appeal No. 20/2011.

29 Section 53T, Competition Act, 2002.

30 See Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Ors., 2015(10)SCALE114, paragraph 36.

31 Kingfisher Airlines Limited, a company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Dr. Vijay Mallya v. Competition Commission of India through its Secretary (Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India), The Director General, Competition Commission of India, M.P. Mehrotra, Indian Inhabitant and Union of India (UOI) through Secretary, Ministry of Company Affairs [2011]100CLA190(Bom).

32 Case Nos. 07 & 30/2012, Case No. 06/2014 and Case No. 46/2014.

33 The Board of Control for Cricket in India v. The Competition Commission of India and Ors., Appeal No. 17 of 2013 and I.A. No. 26 of 2013, decided on 23 February 2015.

34 XYZ v. REC Power Distribution Company Limited, Case No. 33 of 2014, decided on 15 May 2016.

35 Chemists & Druggists Association & Ors. v. CCI & Ors., Appeal Nos. 21/2014 to 28/2014 and IA Nos. 31/2014 to 46/2014, decided on 30 October 2015 (CCI has preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court).

36 M/s Royal Agency v. Chemists & Druggists Association, Goa & Anr (Case No. 63/2013), Order dated 27 October 2015; Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal v. DLF Gurgaon Home Developers Pvt Ltd (Case No. 13 & 21/2010 and Case No.55/2012), Order dated 12 May 2015.

37 Section 53N, Competition Act, 2002.

38 Regulation 35, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

39 Section 36(1), Competition Act, 2002.

40 Section 41(2), Competition Act, 2002.

41 Regulation 35, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

42 Regulation 37 and 50, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

43 Regulation 41, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

44 Regulation 44, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

45 Regulation 45, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

46 See Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, W.P.(C) 6336/2016, High Court of Delhi; Sumitomo Wiring Systems Ltd v. Competition Commission of India and Anr, W.P.(C) 6378/2016, High Court of Delhi; NTN Corporation v. Competition Commission of India and Anr, W.P.(C) 3051/2016, High Court of Delhi; See M/s. MRF Limited v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, W.P. No. 35255 of 2015, Madras High Court.

47 Section 36(3), Competition Act, 2002.

48 Section 17(3), Competition Act, 2002 and Regulation 52, CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.

49 Competition Commission of India (Procedure for Engagement of Experts and Professionals) Regulations, 2009, No. R-4007/6/REG-EXPORT/NOTI/04-CCI, dated 15 May 2009.

50 Section 46, Competition Act, 2002.

51 Section 42, Competition Act, 2002.

52 Section 43, Competition Act, 2002.

53 Section 42A, Competition Act, 2002.

54 The Tamil Nadu Film Exhibitors Association v. CCI & Ors., AIR 2015 Mad 106, paragraph 37.

55 Ibid, paragraph 43.

56 Union of India v. CCI & Ors, 2012 CompLR 187 (Delhi).

57 See In Re: Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. & Others., Case No. 03 of 2011, decided on 27 July 2015 (in continuation of an earlier order dated 25 August 2014), Appeal No. 60/2014, 61/2014 and 62/2014 disposed of by COMPAT on 9 December 2016; Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora v. M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd. & Ors., Case No. 59 of 2011, decided on 3 February 2015 (Order upheld by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 6262/2015, Order dated 16 May 2016).

58 The Competition (Amendment) Bill, 2012, available at www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-competition-amendment-bill-2012-2571/.

59 Mr. Mohit Manglani v. M/s Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors., Case No. 80/2014, 23 April 2015; Mr. Ashish Ahuja v. Snapdeal.com through Mr. Kunal Bahl, CEO & Ors., Case No. 17/2014, 19 May 2014. Appeal No. 54/2014 dismissed by COMPAT on 13 February 2016.

60 M/s Jasper lnfotech Private Limited (Snapdeal) v. M/s Kaff Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd., Case No. 61/2014, 29 December 2014; M/s Fast Track Call Cab Private Limited v. M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Case No. 06/2015, 24 April 2015.

61 Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India, [LPA 246 of 2016], High Court of Delhi.

62 See CCI v. JCB India Ltd., 2014(146)DRJ531; CCI v. Grasim Industries Ltd [LPA137/2014], High Court of Delhi.

63 Delhi Development Authority & Ors v. CCI & Anr, 2015IVAD(Delhi)555.