Asian Paints has asked the Bombay High Court to set aside the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI’s) 1 July order that called for an investigation into alleged anti‑competitive practices by the company. Senior counsel Darius Khambata, representing Asian Paints, argued that the order was issued without proper consideration or “any application of mind”, adding that the company faces a similar investigation by the competition watchdog every time a new player enters the market.

A bench led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Kedar Gokhale was hearing a writ petition filed by Asian Paints seeking the quashing of the CCI order. The court will hear the matter next on 7 August, when CCI will conclude its arguments.

Birla Opus’s allegations

On 1 July CCI ordered its director general (investigative arm) to begin an investigation into the company following allegations of anti-competitive practices by Birla Opus, the new decorative paints segment of the Aditya Birla Group. In a exchange filing on 3 July, Asian Paints said it was reviewing the order and would take appropriate legal recourse.

“Every time a new entrant comes I have to face a similar investigation. Search and seizure for hours. Extremely wide path”, Khambata said. He clarified that such complaints have been immediately dismissed in the past, and said Asian Paints filed the plea as there had been a breach of “fairness and natural justice”.

Grasim Industries, which houses the Birla Opus, has accused Asian Paints of using anti-competitive tactics to hinder its entry and growth in the Indian decorative paints market. It claimed Asian Paints has been putting pressure on dealers not to stock Birla Opus products by threatening to withdraw credit, incentives, and other forms of support. It also accused Asian Paints of coercing trade partners to return tinting machines supplied by Grasim and of obstructing access to essential supply-chain services, including transport and warehousing.

Taking note of the allegations, CCI issued a revised investigation order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, instructing the director general to complete the probe in 90 days. The regulator said there was enough material on record at the preliminary stage to launch an investigation without hearing Asian Paints. It clarified that this directive should not be seen as a final order.

Similar complaint by JSW Paints came to nought

When JSW Paints entered the decorative paints market in 2020, it had filed a similar complaint against Asian Paints for allegedly abusing its market dominance. It alleged that the market leader reduced credit limits and downgraded the tier status of several dealers who began associating with JSW Paints.

But after a two-year investigation, the watchdog found no evidence of wrongdoing by Asian Paints. JSW Paints subsequently challenged the CCI order in an appellate tribunal, and a hearing is scheduled for 11 August.

According to analysts at ICICI Securities, the paint industry’s revenue is likely to recover in FY26 after declining in FY25. They analysed the industry’s performance over the past 20 years and found a pattern: after two slow years, the industry usually bounces back with strong growth for the next two years, they said in a note dated 30 June. Since FY24 and FY25 were slow years for the industry, it could see strong growth in FY26 and FY27, the report said.

Asian Paints started the year on a soft note, with profits declining and revenue flat in the first quarter of FY26, owing to soft demand and an early monsoon. The paintmaker’s June-quarter profit fell by 6% to ₹1,099.77 crore from ₹1,169.98 crore in the same quarter a year ago, according to the company’s exchange filings.

Asian Paints shares closed 2.23% higher at ₹2,491.20 on Wednesday, amid a 0.35% decline in the benchmark Nifty 50.