The Delhi High Court has upheld the power of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to condone delay in initiating proceedings, while dismissing an appeal challenging the continuation of a competition law investigation.
The Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul refused to interfere with the order of the CCI as well as the earlier decision of the Single Judge, thereby allowing the investigation into alleged anti-competitive conduct to proceed.
The dispute arose from a suo motu case initiated by the CCI based on information received under the Competition Act, 2002, relating to alleged labour-market coordination practices within the industry. Acting under Section 26(1) of the Act, the Commission had formed a prima facie opinion of contravention of Section 3 and directed the Director General to investigate the matter.
The appellant challenged the proceedings primarily on the ground of limitation, arguing that the information was filed beyond the statutory three-year period prescribed under the proviso to Section 19(1) of the Act. It was contended that the CCI had failed to record adequate reasons demonstrating “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay, thereby violating statutory requirements.
Buy Now: E-Compilation of Supreme Court Judgements – March 2026
The appellant argued that condonation of delay is not merely procedural but affects substantive rights, and therefore must strictly comply with the statutory framework. It was also submitted that the Single Judge erred in relying on the administrative nature of proceedings under Section 26(1) and failed to properly examine the limitation issue.
However, the Court rejected these contentions and upheld the reasoning adopted by the CCI as well as the Single Judge. It noted that the Commission had duly considered the limitation aspect and recorded reasons for condoning the delay. These included the applicant’s internal investigation timeline, prompt approach to the Commission after notification of the Lesser Penalty Regulations, 2024, and the continuing nature of the alleged anti-competitive conduct.
The Court also emphasized that issues involving labour-market coordination have wider economic and social implications, particularly in the context of declining wages and employment concerns. It observed that examining such practices is crucial to protect workers and ensure fair competition in the labour market.
Importantly, the Bench reiterated the settled legal position that once an authority exercises its discretion to condone delay based on recorded reasons, appellate courts should be slow to interfere unless there is a clear error of law. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court endorsed a liberal and justice-oriented approach in matters of condonation of delay.
The Court further held that the initiation of investigation under Section 26(1) is administrative in nature and does not warrant judicial interference at a preliminary stage, especially when no jurisdictional error is demonstrated.
Finding no legal infirmity in the orders of the CCI or the Single Judge, the High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the investigation to continue.
Case Details
Case Title: International Flavors And Fragrances Inc. Vs Competition Commission Of India
Citation: JURISHOUR-875-HC-2026(DEL)
Case No.: LPA 266/2026 & CM APPL. 24416/2026, CM APPL. 24417/2026
Date: 15th April, 2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Rajiv Nayar
Counsel For Respondent: Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Adv.
