On November 23, 2021, the CCI disposed the application dated November 10, 2021 filed by the informant seeking an interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act after the CCI had passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act in Case No. 21 of 2019 ordering an investigation against Tata Motors Ltd. (‘Tata Motors’) & Ors.^[1]  

The informant alleged that Tata Motors had illegally and unlawfully blocked the access code in September, 2020, which was required by the informant to conduct business with Tata Motors, in terms of the dealership agreement dated February 10, 2017 which was subsisting and binding upon parties till March 31, 2021. Thus, the informant requested the CCI to, inter alia, direct Tata Motors to renew the agreement dated February 10, 2017, for a period of five years as promised and/or assured by Tata Motors and unblock the access code of the informant.

The CCI, in its order, noted the parameters for grant of interim relief as laid down in Section 33 of the Competition Act. The CCI also briefly iterated the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited wherein it was held that ‘this power had to be exercised by the Commission sparingly and under compelling and exceptional circumstances”. Further, it was held that the CCI, while recording a reasoned order, inter alia, should: ‘(i) record its satisfaction which has to be of much higher degree than formation of a prima facie view under Section 26(1) of the Act in clear terms that an act in contravention of the stated provisions has been committed and continues to be committed or is about to be committed; (ii) it is necessary to issue order of restraint; and (iii) from the record before the Commission, it is apparent that there is every likelihood of the party to the lis, suffering irreparable and irretrievable damage or there is definite apprehension that it would have adverse effect on competition in the market.’

In view of the above, the CCI concluded that the informant had failed to meet any of the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was observed that this was a belated attempt by the informant to impugn the purported denial of access code in September, 2020 i.e. after a delay of over one year and lapse of dealership agreement. Accordingly, the CCI held that examining the present application was unnecessary as the grant of the overarching prayers sought by the informant would virtually revive a lapsed agreement.

[1] Case No. 16 of 2020