Asian Paints moves Supreme Court against CCI probe into Grasim case

The company challenges the CCI's probe order after the Bombay High Court dismissed its plea on alleged abuse of dominance in the decorative paints segment

Asian Paints, Supreme Court
The Asian Paints petition against this order was registered in the Supreme Court on October 9, court records showed.
Ruchika ChitravanshiBhavini Mishra New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Oct 10 2025 | 11:42 PM IST
Asian Paints has filed a petition in the Supreme Court against an investigation order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) after its appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court last month, according to people in the know.
 
The CCI had ordered an investigation into the company for alleged abuse of dominant position based on a complaint by Aditya Birla Group's Grasim Industries on July 1.
 
The Bombay High Court, in its order, had said it found no merit in the petition.
 
Rejecting Asian Paint’s petition, the division Bench of the high court had said that, “There is no merit in the petitioner's contention that he ought to have been heard in the facts.”
 
It said that whether or not to afford such a hearing is a matter of discretion with the CCI, guided by the facts and circumstances of each case.
 
The Asian Paints petition against this order was registered in the Supreme Court on October 9, court records showed. Asian Paints did not reply to an email query sent on this matter.
 
Grasim had accused Asian Paints of engaging in exclusionary practices aimed at stifling its entry and growth in the Indian decorative paints segment.
 
“The commission, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(1) of the Act, directs the Director General to investigate the matter and submit a report within a period of 90 days of the receipt of the present order. At this prima facie stage, the regulator, in light of the material available on record, finds no reason to hear the opposing party before passing the present order,” the order said.
 
It added that its order should not be construed as a final finding on the matter.
 
Grasim, a recent entrant into the decorative paints segment under the Birla Opus Paints brand, accused Asian Paints of stifling competition by forcing dealers to avoid stocking Birla Opus products.
 
Grasim said Asian Paints allegedly threatened to reduce their credit, benefits, or support, pressuring partners to return Grasim’s tinting machines and blocking access to key suppliers, transporters, and warehouse facilities.
 
Grasim has already cornered a 10 per cent revenue market share in FY25. This has made it a serious player in the market.

One subscription. Two world-class reads.

Already subscribed? Log in

Subscribe to read the full story →
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

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

Topics :Asian PaintsBombay High CourtSupreme Court

Next Story