Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 APRIL 2017

CCI- Chemists And Druggists Associations Warned To Refrain From Indulging Into Anti-Competitive Practices

S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Contributor
S.S. Rana & Co.

S.S. Rana & Co.

Established in 1989, S.S. Rana & Co. is a premier intellectual property and corporate law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from S.S. Rana & Co.

In 2009, the Belgaum District Chemists and Druggists Association filed a complaint alleging that Abbott India Ltd. and Geno Pharmaceuticals had stopped the supply of essential medicines.

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Rupin Chopra
Rupin Chopra
Chanakya Sharma
Chanakya Sharma
Author LinkedIn connections

In 2009, the Belgaum District Chemists and Druggists Association ('hereinafter referred as BCDA') filed a complaint alleging that Abbott India Ltd. and Geno Pharmaceuticals had stopped the supply of essential medicines. The sole ground for refusal by the Pharma Companies was that the members of the BCDA had to first obtain 'No objection certificate' from the All India organization of Chemists and Druggists ('hereinafter referred as AIOCD') or the Karnataka Chemists and Druggists Association ('hereinafter referred as KCDA') for being appointed as a stockist.

On 2nd March, 2017, the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as 'CCI') directed the KCDA to 'Cease and Desist' from indulging into the anti-competitive practice of mandating 'No Objection Certificate' as a prerequisite for appointment of stockist and also refrain from fixing 'trade margins' for retailers and wholesalers.1

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

An Update On India’s Proposed Digital Competition Law

India’s proposed Digital Competition Law has evolved through several stages, from the 2022 Parliamentary Committee report and the 2024 Committee on Digital Competition Law’s draft Bill, through a 2025 government reconsideration, to renewed Parliamentary backing for an ex-ante framework in August 2026. Drawing on comparative experience from the EU, UK, and Japan, this article argues that legislative reform must be matched by a strengthened Competition Commission of India if ex-ante regulation is to work in practice.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Article

Adjudication Or Legislation? Google's Play Store Battle Before The CCI And The Future Of Digital Competition Law In India

As the world evolves, every economy is now making progress towards becoming a technology-driven economy and there is an ongoing debate to bring specific changes to the competition law for a technology-driven economy. The prevailing view, however, is that the existing Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) already reaches several technology-based claims, and major jurisdictions have stretched their competition statutes to cover platform conduct rather than wait for bespoke digital-market legislation.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

Competition Law Updates August 2026

On 13 July 2026, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed penalties exceeding ₹142 crore on HP India and several reselers under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) for cartelisation and bid rigging in the sale and supply of HP personal system products, including laptops, desktops, workstations and accessories (Computers Case), and ink and toner cartridges (Cartridges Case). The orders arose from lesser penalty applications filed by HP India under Section 46 of the Competition Act read with the CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

Use Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) In Courts

On June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of India’s AI Committee released preliminary draft of the Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Courts, 2026 (“The Draft”). This marks a shift from scattered experiments with AI tools for translation, transcription, research and case management. With over 93,000 pending matters as of March 2026, the guidelines aim to ease processes for officials and citizens. AI could help reduce backlogs through automated cause-list preparation, transcription, research, and defect scrutiny, but its use also raises serious concerns.
IndiaTechnology
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

FSSAI Raises Turnover Limits For Food Business Registration And Licensing

The change is effected through two instruments: the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Amendment Regulations, 2026, notified via gazette on 10th March, 2026[1] (the “Amendment Regulations”), and a subsequent implementation order dated 13th March, 2026[2] (the “Order”) issued by FSSAI directing all licensing authorities to apply the revised thresholds with effect from 1st April, 2026.
IndiaFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Is Meta Still Just An Intermediary? Why India Is Rethinking Safe Harbour

In mid-September 2026, government sources said Meta Platforms’ Indian operations, Facebook, Instagram and Threads, should no longer be viewed merely as an “internet intermediary” but should also be treated as a “service provider,” arguing that the company’s monetised algorithms actively decide what content gets amplified, distributed and shown to whom. That is a government position, not a new statutory classification, and this article returns to that distinction below.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

CERT-In’s New AI-Vulnerability Guidelines: A Quick-Reference For OEMs, Tech Vendors And In-House Counsel

Cybersecurity regulation in India has, until now, largely spoken to the entity that suffers the breach. The 2022 CERT-In Directions issued under Section 70B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 fixed a six-hour reporting clock on the organisation that detects an incident. The new Guidelines flip the lens onto the entity upstream of that breach, the OEM or technology provider that built the product in the first place. For the first time, vendors supplying software, firmware, cloud platforms, or APIs into India carry direct, time-bound, and independently verifiable obligations of their own and not obligations that are merely passed through a customer contract, but obligations CERT-In itself may enforce.
IndiaTechnology
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Understanding The 50% Wage Rule Under The Code On Wages, 2019: A Cap On Exclusions, Not A Ceiling On Wages

India’s new labour code framework, comprising four consolidated codes enacted between 2019 and 2020, represents the most comprehensive overhaul of employment laws since independence. Among these, the Code on Wages, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) amalgamates the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; the Minimum Wages Act, 1948; the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, into a single, unified enactment.
IndiaEmployment and HR
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

Mandatory Affidavit In Bail Applications: The Supreme Court’s Zeba Khan Framework And The Bombay High Court Circular In India

Bail is decided at speed and on incomplete information, and the system has long struggled with a recurring problem: an applicant who does not disclose, or who actively suppresses, facts that bear on whether bail should be granted, from a string of earlier rejected bail pleas to a history of antecedents. The Supreme Court’s recent intervention addresses that problem directly, by requiring the material particulars to be placed before the court on oath.
IndiaCorporate/Commercial Law
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.