Apple Challenges CCI’s Global Turnover Penalty in Delhi High Court
Apple Inc. has moved the Delhi High Court against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) amended penalty framework under Section 27(g) of the Competition Act, 2002, which bases fines on a company’s average global turnover rather than India-specific revenue. The petition, filed amid CCI’s ongoing probe into Apple’s alleged abuse of dominance in the iOS app store market, warns of potential exposure up to USD 38 billion which is 10% of Apple’s USD 383 billion FY-24 global turnover.
On November 28, 2025, Justice Yogesh Khanna issued notices to the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs and CCI, seeking responses within one week. Apple’s arguments invoke Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, claiming the 2023 amendment (shifting from “relevant turnover” post-Excel Crop Care) is arbitrary, disproportionate, and extraterritorial, lacking jurisdictional nexus for global penalties. CCI defends the regime as vital for deterring multinational abuses, aligning with EU practices.
The challenge arises from CCI’s October 2024 prima facie order on Apple’s anti-steering rules restricting developers from alternative payments, with merits pending. This dispute highlights India-US antitrust tensions, mirroring global challenges. Next hearing awaits government replies by early December 2025, with implications for FDI and digital regulation.
NCLAT Bars CCI from Patent Disputes, Affirming Patents Act Primacy
In Swapan Dey v. Competition Commission of India & Ors., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruled on October 30, 2025, that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) lacks jurisdiction to investigate anti-competitive conduct involving patented products, dismissing an appeal against CCI’s closure order. The case centred on allegations against Vifor International Ltd. for abuse of dominance via exclusive licensing of Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), a patented drug for iron deficiency treatment, with partners Emcure Pharmaceuticals and Lupin Ltd.
The NCLAT held that Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, 2002, explicitly preserves patent holders’ rights to impose reasonable conditions for IP protection, rendering CCI powerless where Patents Act, 1970, governs. The NCLAT relied on Delhi High Court’s Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI (2023) and Supreme Court’s dismissal of CCI’s SLP (No. 25026/2023) on September 2, 2025, affirming Patents Act as a complete code for licensing, pricing, and compulsory licenses under Sections 83-84. Since Vifor’s FCM patent was active during the period, competition claims yielded to patent law.
The case reinforces judicial separation; CCI handles general antitrust, but patent exercises fall exclusively under Patents Act remedies. Pharma innovators gain clarity against dual scrutiny, while informants face hurdles in IP-linked complaints. The ruling streamlines jurisdiction, urging CCI to defer patent-heavy cases, and signals robust IP safeguards amid India’s antitrust push.
Discount Control or Abuse of Dominance? The NCLAT’s Latest Turn in Maruti Suzuki v. CCI
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on November 13, 2025, continued hearings in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.’s appeal against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) August 2021 order, adjourning the next substantive listing to December 17, 2025. The case, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CCI, challenges CCI’s Rs. 696.12 crore penalty for alleged abuse of dominance through vertical restraints, including discount control schemes imposed on dealers from 2009–2011.
CCI found Maruti dominant in the passenger car market and ruled its “Best Performance Award” and conditional discounts violated Section 4(2)(a)(ii) and (e) by restricting dealers from offering competing discounts, causing appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC). Maruti contests the findings, arguing pro-competitive efficiencies, lack of foreclosure, and outdated data, while seeking full penalty waiver pending merits. NCLAT’s interim orders have suspended penalty recovery since 2021.
This protracted litigation underscores appellate caution in discount abuse cases, balancing resale price maintenance (RPM) prohibitions with economic evidence of harm. It follows NCLAT’s 2023 BMW precedent emphasizing effects analysis over per se rules for vertical agreements. Auto sector stakeholders monitor for guidance on loyalty rebates and dealer incentives amid CCI’s renewed focus post-2023 amendments. This ruling could affirm or dilute CCI’s expansive RPM interpretation, impacting discount practices across FMCG and retail.
Disclaimer: The information published in the above newsletter is collected from various sources in electronic medium and analyzed by the firm. The reader is advised to consult the attorney qualified in their jurisdiction, before acting on any information contained in this newsletter. India Juris excepts no liability what so ever in this regard.
