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.
 "Asian Paints, Supreme Court")