No Evidence of Anti-competitive Practices Found Against Lupin’s Distribution Policy, Investigation Unwarranted

Case Details: Nadie Jauhri v. Lupin Ltd.- [2023] 157 taxmann.com 36 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Anil Agrawal, Ms Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the informant filed an information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”), accusing Lupin Ltd. (‘Opposite Party No. 1’/’Lupin’) and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (‘Opposite Party No. 2’/’Dr. Reddy’s’)—collectively referred to as (‘OPs’)—of violating the provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act.

The informant alleged that the terms and rules contained in the distribution policy of OP did not allow the market to grow effectively and for healthy competition to drive market outcomes.

Additionally, the informant claimed that the OPs failed to implement an agreement for the appointment of a stockist due to the absence of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the local Chemist Association.

CCI Held

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), however, highlighted the absence of supporting evidence for the informant’s allegations. The Commission also noted that the informant raised concerns about expired goods and misbranding against the OPs, matters falling outside the purview of the Act.

Given the lack of substantiating evidence for the informant’s claims, the CCI concluded that no case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, warranting an investigation, was established. Consequently, the CCI rejected the allegations.