Phoenix Legal | View firm profile
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), by its order dated 09 June 2026, found four truck associations i.e. Bhadrasahi/Guali Truck Association (OP-1), Bonai Truck and Tipper Owners’ Association (OP-2), Keonjhar District Truck Owners’ Association (OP-3), and Joda Truck Owners’ Association (OP-4) (collectively, OPs), operating in Odisha engaged in anti-competitive practices in contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002 (Act).
The Indian Steel Association (ISA / Informant), alleged that OPs were engaged in (i) fixing freight rates for transporting mineral-carrying goods carriages, even beyond the maximum freight fixed by the State Transport Authority (STA); (ii) not allowing any independent transporter to transport raw materials from the mines; and (iii) using only smaller trucks (6 and 10-wheeler trucks) for transportation, resulting in higher freights and limiting the quantity that can be dispatched in a truck.
The investigation conducted by the Director General (DG) found that the OPs were indeed issuing their own freight rate charts and resolutions to enforce these higher rates, often through concerted action, which in some instances exceeded the STA-prescribed rates by up to 500%. The DG also concluded that the OPs restricted market access by not allowing independent transporters to operate, as evidenced by resolutions granting exclusivity to association-registered trucks and admissions from office bearers that they deliberately excluded new entrants. However, the allegation that the OPs restricted the use of larger, higher-capacity trucks (like 12-wheelers) in favor of smaller 6 and 10-wheelers was not substantiated by evidence, as no systemic restriction was found.
The CCI, in its analysis, concurred with the DG’s findings on the first two issues, holding that the collective fixing of freight rates by the associations constituted a clear case of price coordination under Section 3(3)(a), and the exclusion of independent transporters amounted to limiting and controlling the market for services under Section 3(3)(b) of the Act.
Accordingly, the CCI held all four OPs in contravention of Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. In terms of liability under Section 48 of the Act, the CCI identified specific office bearers of each association who were responsible for the anti-competitive conduct during their respective tenures. Since the OPs and their individuals have failed to provide their financial details, the CCI held that it would consider appropriate penalty to be imposed on the OPs and their individuals upon receipt of such details.
CCI CLOSES PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEVERAL CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST ASSOCIATIONS, PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY BODIES AND LEADING DRUG MANUFACTURERS
The CCI, by its order dated 29 June 2026 under Section 26(9) of the Act, closed proceedings against the All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD), its affiliated chemists’ associations, pharmaceutical manufacturers’ associations, and several pharmaceutical companies, holding that no contravention of Section 3 of the Act was established.
The case arose from an information filed by the President of the All India Chemists and Distributors Federation (AICDF), alleging that AIOCD and its affiliated associations compelled pharmaceutical companies to obtain No Objection Certificates (NOCs)/Letters of Consent (LOCs) before appointing stockists, mandated Product Information Service (PIS) approvals for launch of new products, fixed trade margins through Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) executed with manufacturers’ associations, restricted appointment of stockists and engaged in boycott practices against non-compliant pharmaceutical companies. The DG concluded that these practices amounted to anti-competitive agreements and found several associations, pharmaceutical companies and individuals liable under Sections 3 and 48 of the Act.
Upon examination of the DG’s findings, the CCI observed that the material relied upon by the DG predominantly pertained to the period 2009–2011, whereas the impugned MoU framework had been formally terminated in 2011. The CCI noted that, pursuant to its earlier orders in M/s Santuka Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists & Ors. (Case No. 20 of 2011), M/s Peeveear Medical Agencies, Kerala v. All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists & Ors. (Case No. 30 of 2011) and M/s Sandhya Drug Agency v. Assam Drug Dealers Association & Ors. (Case No. 41 of 2011), AIOCD had furnished an Affidavit of Compliance and Undertaking dated 03 January 2014 confirming discontinuation of practices relating to NOCs/LOCs, PIS charges, trade margins and boycott of pharmaceutical products.
The CCI further noted that the DG failed to establish any continuing implementation of these practices after the aforesaid compliance undertaking was furnished or demonstrate that NOC/LOC requirements and PIS approvals remained mandatory in practice. Evidence placed on record also showed that several pharmaceutical companies had independently appointed stockists without obtaining NOCs.
In the absence of cogent evidence establishing any continuing anti-competitive agreement or active participation by the pharmaceutical companies, the CCI declined to sustain the DG’s findings. Consequently, no liability was fastened on the identified individuals under Section 48 of the Act.
Accordingly, the CCI held that no contravention of Section 3 of the Act was established against any of the opposite parties and closed the proceedings.
CCI APPROVES FORMATION OF JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN MERCURIA AND TATA INTERNATIONAL
The CCI, by its order, approved the proposed formation of a joint venture between Mercuria Energy Netherlands B.V. (Mercuria) and Tata International Singapore (Pte.) Limited (TISPL).
The proposed combination involves Mercuria acquiring a 51% stake and TISPL acquiring a 49% stake in a newly incorporated joint venture entity i.e. JV Holding Co. (Target), to be established in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), United Arab Emirates (UAE). As part of the transaction, Tata International Limited’s Indian trading business will be transferred to a wholly owned Indian subsidiary (META India), which will subsequently become a wholly owned subsidiary of the joint venture. The joint venture will undertake commodity trading activities including metals, minerals, agricultural products, and oil and gas.
For the purpose of competition assessment, the CCI observed horizontal overlaps between the parties in: (a) market for trading of coal in India (Coal Trading Market) including its narrow segment of trading of thermal coal in India (Thermal Coal Trading Market); and (b) market for trading of crude oil and refined petroleum products in India (Oil Trading Market) including its narrow segment of trading of refined petroleum products in India (Refined Petroleum Trading Market). The CCI also noted that there were no vertical or complementary linkages between the activities of the parties.
The CCI observed that the combined market shares of the parties in the overlapping markets were in the range of [0–5]%. It further noted that these markets are characterised by the presence of several established competitors. Accordingly, the CCI concluded that the proposed combination is unlikely to give rise to foreclosure concerns or cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) in India.
Accordingly, the CCI approved the proposed combination under Section 31(1) of the Act.
CCI APPROVES MERGER OF INDOVIDA INDIA WITH EPL LIMITED
The CCI by its order, approved the proposed merger of Indovida India Private Limited (Indovida India) with EPL Limited (EPL).
The proposed combination forms part of an internal restructuring of the Indorama Ventures Public Company Limited (IVL) group. Pursuant to the transaction, certain IVL group entities engaged in the plastic packaging business will first be consolidated under Indovida India, following which Indovida India will merge with EPL by way of absorption. Upon completion of the merger, EPL will become the resultant entity, with Indorama Netherlands B.V. expected to hold approximately 52% of its shareholding.
For the purpose of competition assessment, the CCI observed a horizontal overlap between the parties in the manufacture and sale of plastic packaging in India. While the IVL group is engaged in the manufacture and sale of rigid plastic packaging, EPL primarily operates in the flexible/collapsible plastic packaging segment. The CCI also noted that there are no existing or potential vertical linkages between the activities of the parties in India.
The CCI observed that the combined market share of the parties in the broader plastic packaging market is in the range of [0–5]% and that the market is characterised by the presence of several credible competitors. Accordingly, the CCI concluded that the proposed combination is unlikely to raise foreclosure concerns or cause an AAEC in India.
Accordingly, the CCI approved the proposed combination under Section 31(1) of the Act.
Contributors:
Kunal Mehra, Partner and Head of Antitrust & Competition
New Delhi
Danish Khan, Associate Partner
New Delhi