SC upholds NCLAT order setting aside CCI's ₹301.6-crore penalty on Grasim Industries

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Your active subscription(s)

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Products you've access to

Additional Subscription Benefits

Need help with your subscription?

The tribunal had observed that the CCI did not provide a chance to Grasim Industries to present its arguments after it differed from the findings of the Director General (DG), the regulator’s probe unit

Published - July 31, 2026 05:34 pm IST - New Delhi

A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) appeal challenging the May 5 NCLAT order. | Photo Credit: Reuters

The Supreme Court on Friday (July 31, 2026) upheld an NCLAT order that set aside a ₹301.6 crore penalty imposed on Grasim Industries by the Competition Commission of India and directed the fair trade regulator to hear the Aditya Birla Group firm again over its alleged dominance in the viscose staple fibre market.

A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) appeal challenging the May 5 NCLAT order.

The tribunal had observed that the CCI did not provide a chance to Grasim Industries to present its arguments after it differed from the findings of the Director General (DG), the regulator’s probe unit.

The CCI had imposed the penalty on Grasim Industries in March 2020 for allegedly abusing its dominant position with respect to the supply of viscose staple fibre (VSF) to spinners in India.

Grasim challenged the order before the NCLAT, which is also an appellate authority over the CCI, which asked the regulator to hear the matter afresh.

A two-member National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench said the CCI itself has "differed from the findings of the DG" regarding their directions for disclosure of discounting/pricing policy and sale to "buyers" who can trade VSF.

In such cases, where there is a difference between the CCI and its DG, it "requires the Commission to give opportunity to the opposite party (Grasim)", the NCLAT said, citing previous judgments.

The NCLAT had said that CCI "had omitted to give notice" to Grasim Industries regarding the disagreement and thereby "deprived" the Aditya Birla Group firm "an opportunity to defend itself" against the proposed actions.

"We set aside the impugned order and remand it back to the Commission with a direction to provide an opportunity to the appellant wherever the Commission differs with the findings of the DG and to decide the case expeditiously in a time-bound manner,” the NCLAT said.

The tribunal also made it clear that it has "not commented on the merits of the case" while passing the order, and the CCI "should not be influenced by anything contained in this judgement".

The CCI in its order had said that Grasim had abused its dominant position in the market for supply of VSF to spinners in India by charging discriminatory prices from its customers, besides imposing supplementary obligations upon them.

The CCI directed the company to "refrain from adopting unfair/discriminatory pricing practices and also refrain from seeking the consumption details of VSF from the buyers".

The watchdog also asked Grasim to put in place a discount policy, which is transparent and non-discriminatory to all market participants, and to make it easily and publicly accessible/available.

A complaint alleging unfair business practices was filed against the Association of Man Made Fibre Industry of India, Grasim Industries, Thai Rayon, and Indo Bharat Rayon. The three companies are part of the Aditya Birla Group.

VSF is a versatile, biodegradable, cellulosic fiber used widely in fashion apparel, home textiles and non-woven hygiene products.

Known for its soft texture, high absorbency and excellent drape, VSF is often blended with cotton, polyester or linen to enhance comfort, durability and fabric quality.

Published - July 31, 2026 05:34 pm IST

judiciary (system of justice)

Terms & conditions | Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.