Supreme Court refuses to entertain Asian Paints’ plea against CCI probe

In a setback for Asian Paints, the Supreme Court on October 13 refused to entertain the company’s plea challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) probe into a complaint filed by Grasim Industries, clearing the way for the antitrust watchdog to continue its investigation.

Read more: Asian Paints’ anti-competitive allegations raise questions on brand trust, open doors for competitors

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s July order that upheld the CCI’s decision to investigate alleged anti-competitive practices by Asian Paints. Following this, the company chose to withdraw its appeal.

“After arguing for some time, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the plea. Accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn,” the court recorded in its order.

The case stems from a complaint filed by Grasim Industries Limited (Birla Opus Paints) in December 2024, shortly after it entered the decorative paints market. Grasim had accused Asian Paints of abusing its dominant position by offering arbitrary discounts, coercing dealers, and manipulating supply and logistics arrangements to stifle competition.

Read more: Bombay High Court rejects Asian Paints’ plea seeking relief in CCI antitrust probe

Acting on the complaint, the CCI on July 1, 2025, directed its Director General (DG) to investigate possible violations under Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d) of the Competition Act. Asian Paints subsequently approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the validity of the probe.

The company argued that the CCI could not reopen issues already examined in previous complaints by JSW Paints and Sri Balaji Traders in 2022, which were dismissed after detailed investigations. It relied on Section 26(2-A) of the Competition Act-introduced in 2023 to claim that the regulator was barred from re-inquiry into substantially similar facts and issues.

However, the High Court rejected these arguments, holding that the provision was only enabling and did not prevent the CCI from examining a new complaint based on fresh material. It also accepted the CCI’s clarification that a procedural lapse in uploading the initial order online was inadvertent and did not invalidate the directive for investigation.

Finding no merit in Asian Paints’ plea, the High Court allowed the probe to proceed- an order that now stands affirmed by the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene.

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

Read more: Asian Paints' profit declines by 6% in Q1 FY26 as marketing push weighs on margins

In September, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed by Asian Paints Limited seeking to quash the ongoing antitrust investigation by the CCI. The country’s largest paint manufacturer, which commands over 52% of the market share, has been under scrutiny following a complaint lodged by rival Birla Opus.

The Aditya Birla Group-owned entity accused Asian Paints of abusing its dominant market position by extending discounts and incentives to dealers in a manner that restricted competition.