Following sustained scrutiny of threshold CCI orders, the Division Bench reaffirmed that a Section 26(1) direction to investigate is administrative and that Section 26(2-A) of the Competition Act, 2002 does not create a jurisdictional bar to later informations on distinct material.

Case title
Asian Paints Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Anr., W.P. No. 2887 of 2025.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:15008-DB (pronounced 11 September 2025).

Bench
Justice Revati Mohite Dere; Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale.

Legal issue
Whether the CCI’s Section 26(1) order (Competition Act, 2002) directing the Director General (DG) to investigate (i) required a prior hearing to the informee, (ii) was vitiated because two versions of the 1 July 2025 order were uploaded, and (iii) was prohibited by Section 26(2-A) (Competition Act, 2002) on the footing that similar allegations had earlier been closed.

Brief Facts
On information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 alleging abuse of dominance by Asian Paints in the decorative paints market, the CCI passed a Section 26(1) order on 1 July 2025 (a corrected version was uploaded the next day) directing a DG investigation under Section 41. Asian Paints petitioned under Article 226, arguing that (a) no hearing preceded the 26(1) order, (b) the two uploads showed non-application of mind, and (c) Section 26(2-A) barred a fresh probe because earlier information by another party had been closed on substantially the same facts.  

Judgment
Petition dismissed. The Court held: (i) a Section 26(1) direction is administrative and preparatory; there is no inherent right to a prior hearing at this stage; merits review is inappropriate at the threshold; (ii) Section 26(2-A) is enabling/clarificatory, it empowers closure where the same or substantially the same facts and issues have already been decided, but it does not bar the CCI from acting on a later information resting on distinct material or context; and (iii) the “two orders” argument failed, the second upload was a corrected, authentic version with no mala fides. The DG’s investigation therefore proceeds; questions of adequacy of reasons and substantive liability fall for later stages before the CCI.  

Subsequent development
On 13 October 2025, the Supreme Court declined to entertain Asian Paints’ challenge to this judgment; the petition was withdrawn, leaving the Bombay HC ruling undisturbed.

To read the full Judgement/Order, CLICK HERE