The Delhi High Court today extended till a final decision its interim order preventing competition watchdog CCI from taking any coercive action against car-maker Maruti Suzuki in connection with a levy of Rs 471 crore penalty on it for alleged abuse of its dominant position in the spare parts market.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher passed the order after being told by Maruti that a similar matter was being heard by a division bench of the high court which has put on hold the effect of a August 2014 Competition Commission of India (CCI) order imposing penalties on various other vehicle manufacturers on the same issue.
The court today said its March 15, 2016 interim order in Maruti's plea "is made absolute" till the division bench finally decides the issue.
On August 25, 2014, the CCI had slapped a total penalty of Rs 2,545 crore on 14 car manufacturers in India after finding them guilty of violating trade norms in the spare parts and after-services market.
While other car makers moved the division bench challenging the constitutionality of the CCI decision, Maruti in its plea before a single judge has claimed that the watchdog had expanded the scope of the probe to the entire car industry, even though it had originally received a complaint against three automobile firms - Honda, Volkswagen and FIAT.
The complaint was filed in January, 2011 against Honda, Volkswagen and FIAT. In April 2011, CCI extended its probe to other manufacturers it found were following a similar practice.
Apart from Maruti and Nissan, Honda Siel Cars India, Volkswagen India, Fiat India Automobiles, BMW India, Ford India, General Motors India, Hindustan Motors, Mahindra and Mahindra, Mercedes-Benz India, Skoda Auto India and Toyota Kirloskar Motor have also been penalised.
As per the CCI order, these car companies were found to have violated competition norms with respect to their agreements with local Original Equipment Suppliers (OESs) as well as in terms of pacts with authorised dealers.
The Commission had also found that these companies, which were found to be dominant in the after-services markets for their respective brands, abused their dominant position affecting around two crore car customers.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
