HC dismisses Dr Reddy’s plea against CCI
Jun 10, 2026, 11.58 PM IST
Hyderabad: Telangana High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition by pharma giant Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Limited challenging proceedings initiated against it by the Competition Commission of India, (CCI). The court ruled that the company was seeking to interfere in an ongoing statutory inquiry at a stage where no final decision had been taken.“Entertaining the petition at this stage would amount to unwarranted interference in a statutory process,” said Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, while noting that the company had adequate opportunity to raise its objections before CCI and, if aggrieved, could approach the statutory appellate authority.
The dispute arose from a 2012 complaint alleging anti-competitive practices involving pharmaceutical companies and trade associations.
CCI had investigated some pharma companies and All India Organisation for Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD) over the mandatory requirement of no objection certification to appoint stockists. According to CCI, the companies and the association allegedly mandated NOCs and association contributions before allowing new stockists.
Following an investigation, the CCI director general submitted a report in April 2024 finding several entities, including Dr Reddy’s, to be in violation of the Competition Act.
According to Dr Reddy’s, it never insisted on obtaining NOCs from trade bodies before appointing stockists and maintained that any product information services obtained from associations was driven by commercial necessity. “Moreover, the investigation report was delayed, contrary to law, and we have been wrongly implicated despite being a victim of coercive practices by trade associations,” Reddy’s’ counsels contended.
The company also challenged the requirement to furnish recent financial statements, questioned the absence of a judicial member in CCI, and argued that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
However, CCI countered that the order was procedural and was part of an ongoing inquiry. “No final findings or penalties had been imposed and that the law provided a complete mechanism, including an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,” argued CCI counsels.
They further contended that delays were largely attributable to a stay granted by the Karnataka high court between 2012 and 2022 and that the company’s non-compliance had further contributed to prolonging the proceedings.
The court held that issues relating to alleged coercion by trade associations, the correctness of the investigation report, the applicability of penalty guidelines and other merits must first be examined by CCI. The court further clarified that it had expressed no opinion on those aspects and dismissed the petition.
The dispute arose from a 2012 complaint alleging anti-competitive practices involving pharmaceutical companies and trade associations.
CCI had investigated some pharma companies and All India Organisation for Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD) over the mandatory requirement of no objection certification to appoint stockists. According to CCI, the companies and the association allegedly mandated NOCs and association contributions before allowing new stockists.
Following an investigation, the CCI director general submitted a report in April 2024 finding several entities, including Dr Reddy’s, to be in violation of the Competition Act.
According to Dr Reddy’s, it never insisted on obtaining NOCs from trade bodies before appointing stockists and maintained that any product information services obtained from associations was driven by commercial necessity. “Moreover, the investigation report was delayed, contrary to law, and we have been wrongly implicated despite being a victim of coercive practices by trade associations,” Reddy’s’ counsels contended.
The company also challenged the requirement to furnish recent financial statements, questioned the absence of a judicial member in CCI, and argued that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
However, CCI countered that the order was procedural and was part of an ongoing inquiry. “No final findings or penalties had been imposed and that the law provided a complete mechanism, including an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal,” argued CCI counsels.
They further contended that delays were largely attributable to a stay granted by the Karnataka high court between 2012 and 2022 and that the company’s non-compliance had further contributed to prolonging the proceedings.
The court held that issues relating to alleged coercion by trade associations, the correctness of the investigation report, the applicability of penalty guidelines and other merits must first be examined by CCI. The court further clarified that it had expressed no opinion on those aspects and dismissed the petition.