In a blow to Asian Paints, the Bombay High Court has dismissed its petition challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order directing a probe into alleged anti-competitive practices.

The court ruled that the petition lacked “merit”.

“We are of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits and as such, ought to be dismissed,” said a bench led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Kedar Gokhale in an order uploaded on Monday.

The court noted that no procedural infirmity had been shown and that the matter rightly fell within the regulator’s jurisdiction to investigate.

The legal tussle began after Birla Opus—the decorative paints arm of the Aditya Birla Group—filed a complaint with the antitrust regulator alleging anti-competitive practices.

It claimed Asian Paints pressured dealers not to stock its products by threatening to withdraw credit, foreign travel incentives, and other forms of support. It also accused the incumbent rival of coercing trade partners to return tinting machines supplied by parent Grasim Industries, obstructing access to transport and warehousing services, and even launching a smear campaign against the new entrant.

The CCI directed the director general to initiate an investigation into Asian Paints on 1 July. Asian Paints said it was reviewing the order and would take appropriate legal recourse in a 3 July stock exchange filing.

Subsequently, Asian Paints approached the Bombay high court, challenging the CCI’s orders and arguing that it faces investigations every time a new player enters the market.

In its writ petition, it sought to quash the CCI’s orders, which were first uploaded on 1 July and then allegedly replaced with a modified version on 2 July.

The company contended that the regulator acted without jurisdiction under the Competition Act, 2002, as similar allegations had already been examined and dismissed in earlier cases filed by JSW Paints and Sri Balaji Traders.

Mustafa Doctor, senior counsel for Birla Opus, clarified that the first order dated 1 July was merely a draft inadvertently uploaded on the CCI’s website. The second order, issued the same day and duly signed by CCI members, was the authentic version and had been furnished to Asian Paints.

Doctor argued that the petition was simply an attempt to prevent the CCI from investigating the allegations.

Darius Khambata, senior counsel representing Asian Paints, countered that the company was repeatedly subjected to similar investigations whenever a new entrant joined the market. “Every time a new entrant comes, I have to face a similar investigation. Search and seizure of hours. Extremely wide path,” he said.

Khambata added that such complaints had been dismissed in the past and argued that the plea was filed mainly due to a breach of fairness and natural justice, as Asian Paints had not been given a fair opportunity to be heard.

Shares of Asian Paints closed 1.72% lower at ₹2,502.60