Business: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider Asian Paint’s plea against an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). CCI in its order had directed investigation against Asian Paints for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market of manufacturing and selling decorative paints.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order. The High Court had upheld the CCI investigation. Since the Supreme Court was unwilling to consider the case, the case was dismissed as withdrawn.

This instruction of CCI has come after the complaint filed by Grasim Industries (Birla Paints Division). In which Asian Paints was accused of adopting exclusionary practices with the aim of hindering its entry and growth in the Indian decorative paints sector.

“The Commission is of the opinion that in the present case there is a prima facie case of violation of the provisions of sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d) of the Act on the part of OP (Asian Paints),” the CCI had said in the order. Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits abuse of dominant position.

For this reason, the fair trade regulator directed the Director General to investigate it and submit a report within 90 days. Grasim, a unit of Aditya Birla Group, had forayed into the decorative paints sector in February last year under the brand ‘Birla Opus Paints’.

The competition regulator found that “the OP (Asian Paints) is imposing unfair conditions on its dealers by imposing exclusivity on such dealers by restricting them from transacting with the OP’s competitors such as the informant (Grasim Industries Ltd), which is found to be in the nature of exploitative conduct.”

Furthermore, “by preventing suppliers of essential raw materials from providing goods and services to competitors of OP such as Informant, as well as forcing landlords, C&F agents and transporters to refrain from associating with competitors such as Grasim, Asian Paints is prima facie creating barriers to new entrants in the market as well as partially foreclosing competition in the market.” Used to be.”

Thus, prima facie, it appears that the conduct of Asian Paints is adversely affecting competition in India, the regulator said. The order clarified that the comments made are not the final opinion on the merits of the case and directed the Director General to conduct the investigation without being influenced in any way by the comments made herein.