Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 OCTOBER 2018

Competition News Bulletin – October 2018

Vaish Associates Advocates
Explore more from Vaish Associates Advocates

By way of order dated August 30, 2018, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 9,64 06,682 on Geep Industries (India) Private limited (‘Geep') for being in a bilateral ancillary cartel with Panasonic (India).

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Vaish Associates Advocates
Vaish Associates Advocates
Author LinkedIn connections

I. CARTELS AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE AGREEMENTS

INDIA

Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposes penalty on Geep Industries for being a member of bilateral "ancillary" cartel

By way of order dated August 30, 2018, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 9,64 06,682 (Nine crores sixty-four lakh six thousand six hundred and eight two) on Geep Industries (India) Private limited ('Geep') for being in a bilateral ancillary cartel with Panasonic (India). Panasonic was a member of a larger primary cartel.

The investigation by the CCI was initiated on the basis of a lesser penalty application ('Leniency Application') filed by Panasonic Corporation, Japan on behalf of itself, Panasonic Energy India Co. Limited, and their respective directors, officers and employees on September 7, 2016. The Leniency Application filed by Panasonic disclosed the existence of a "bilateral ancillary cartel" between Panasonic (India) and Geep industries in the institutional sales of dry cell

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

© 2026, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.

View source

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

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

Sectoral Regulatory Laws And The Competition Commission Of India: Revisiting The Interface After The Amendment Act Of 2023

India has two regulatory layers- sector regulators since the 1990s and the CCI, which alone handles competition matters since 2002, and this has created real gaps and clashes, as seen in telecom, electricity, aviation, and conflicting court rulings. The article argues this isn’t a genuine conflict but a design flaw as the CCI is best placed to judge competition consistently, while sectoral regulators bring technical expertise the CCI lacks. This gap was flagged back in 2011 in a policy draft that was never implemented. The article proposes practical fixes, mandatory coordination, sunset clauses for outdated rules, and a revived regulator forum.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates