The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the Karnataka Power Corporation (KPCL) challenging a January 2026 order by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not required to send a notice to the “informant” if the commission decides to close a particular case at the initial stage.
A bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the KPCL’s plea while upholding the NCLAT ruling. As per Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, the CCI is empowered to close a case if it finds no evidence of anti-competitive agreements (Section 3) or abuse of dominant position (Section 4) post its initial scrutiny of a complaint.
Further, Regulation 19 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 states that if the CCI is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case, the secretary will send a copy of the CCI’s order to the central government or state government or the statutory authority or the parties concerned, as the case may be.
Legal Framework
“Per Section 26(2) of the Competition Act as also Regulation 19, no notice is required to be given if the commission is of the opinion there exists no prima facie case and the Regulation in such circumstance, requires the secretary to send a copy of the order of the commission regarding closure of the matter to the central government or the parties concerned as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Act. Neither the substantive Act nor its regulations envisage any notice to informant at initial stage and thus we find no fault in the (CCI) order,” the NCLAT said while dismissing KPCL’s petition.
KPCL argued that CCI should have given a notice to them and they could have disclosed other material facts related to its complaint.
Commercial Dispute
The case pertains to the CCI’s 2017 order where it found that the antitrust complaint filed by KPCL against Singareni Collieries Company (SCCL) for violating Section 4 of the Competition Act. Following its preliminary investigation, CCI said that SCCL is not dominant player in the production and sale of non-coking coal to the thermal power generators in India. In its order, CCI noted that the share of SCCL in non-coking coal production was insignificant, and the tussle between the parties appeared to be a commercial dispute involving no competition concern, and the remedies of KPCL would lie elsewhere.