The Delhi High Court recently quashed an inquiry initiated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against UK-based JCB and its Indian subsidiary over allegations of misuse of dominant position (JCB India Limited and Anr v The Competition Commission of India and Anr).
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma nullified both the CCI proceedings and a trial court order that had issued search warrants against JCB.
The Court highlighted that Bull Machine, an Indian company producing tractors and related equipment, had withdrawn its complaint from the CCI after reaching a settlement with JCB.
The Bench criticized the CCI for continuing its investigation against JCB despite the settlement, emphasizing that statutory authorities must respect the mediation process.
“Mediation processes and settlements must be acknowledged and upheld by all courts and forums where disputes are pending. Regulatory bodies like the CCI are no exception. The CCI and similar entities must honor mediation outcomes and respect settlements reached between parties. This not only supports the legitimacy of mediation but also fosters a legal environment encouraging amicable dispute resolution without fear of regulatory intervention,” the Court stated.
The Court further expressed concern that allowing the CCI to continue an inquiry after a settlement could undermine the agreement and discourage parties from pursuing mediation.
“This could erode trust in the mediation process, as parties might fear that their efforts to settle disputes could be ignored. Settlements, being voluntary agreements, should not be reopened unless extraordinary circumstances arise, to ensure finality and closure. Additionally, the threat of ongoing CCI investigations could force parties into prolonged and expensive legal battles, defeating the purpose of settlements,” the Court added.
The Bench also reaffirmed the rights of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) holders to protect their intellectual property and warned the CCI against overstepping its jurisdiction in matters better suited for High Courts or commercial courts.
These findings were made in response to two petitions filed by JCB.
JCB had previously sued Bull Machine in the Delhi High Court for design infringement, copyright violation, and passing off.
In 2014, the CCI launched an inquiry into JCB India and its UK parent company over alleged abuse of dominance, based on Bull Machine’s complaint that JCB had filed a frivolous infringement claim against it.
JCB contested the CCI’s jurisdiction to assess the validity of an infringement claim still pending before the Delhi High Court.
In 2015, JCB also challenged a raid conducted on its Indian premises in connection with the CCI proceedings.
Eventually, Bull Machine and JCB resolved their disputes through a Supreme Court-directed mediation process, which concluded in 2021.
JCB was represented by Chandhiok & Mahajan and DSK Legal, with Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and others. Bull Machine was represented by advocates Anurag Ahluwalia, Abir Roy, and their team, while advocates Samar Bansal and Vedant Kapur appeared for the CCI.
