+91 81118 45454


Case Analysis: JSW Paints Ltd vs. Asian Paints Ltd

Home > Blog  > 

Case Analysis: JSW Paints Ltd vs. Asian Paints Ltd

Case Analysis: JSW Paints Ltd vs. Asian Paints Ltd

Case Analysis: JSW Paints Ltd vs. Asian Paints Ltd

The case of JSW Paints versus Asian Paints revolves around allegations that Asian Paints employed tactics to hinder JSW Paints' entry into the paint industry. JSW Paints, a recent entrant in India's paint market, faced purported threats of supply discontinuation from Asian Paints, a well-established industry leader in decorative and industrial paints, boasting the position of the largest paint manufacturer in India and the third-largest in Asia.

JSW Paints launched its decorative paints in 2019 across multiple regions in India, including Kerala, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka. Allegations arose that Asian Paints exerted pressure on dealers, distributors, and retailers associated with JSW Paints, urging them to cease their dealings with JSW Paints' products. This pressure extended to the removal of JSW Paints' displays from retail shelves and dealer signboards, allegedly leading to fear among retailers and dealers. Consequently, several of these entities stopped engaging with JSW Paints, despite initial financial commitments.

Moreover, Asian Paints was accused of pressuring infrastructure providers, such as warehouses, to refrain from accommodating JSW Paints' products. JSW Paints appealed to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to investigate the matter under Section 26(1) of the Act, requesting orders to cease anti-competitive activities and impose penalties on Asian Paints under Section 27 of the Act. Subsequently, the Director General (DG) of CCI conducted an investigation.

The issues at hand involved defining the relevant market, alleged abuse of dominant position (Section 4 of the Act), and potential restraints under Section 3(4) of the Act pertaining to exclusive supply agreements.

Post the DG's investigation, the respondent, Asian Paints, argued that their conduct was not anti-competitive and contested JSW's allegations. They claimed that JSW Paints had managed to acquire additional dealers within a short period. Asian Paints asserted that their dealings with dealers were fair, involving reductions in credit limits.

On the contrary, JSW Paints contended that the DG's analysis was inadequate. They emphasized Asian Paints' dominance in the market, citing factors such as increased revenue, brand value, financial strength, and the extensive dealer network, which gave Asian Paints the ability to influence dealers through incentives.

The conclusion drawn was that Asian Paints indeed held a dominant position in the relevant market for decorative paints in India's organized sector. However, due to insufficient evidence, allegations of denial of infrastructural facilities, coercive actions against dealers, and violation of Sections 4 and 3(4) of the Act weren't substantiated.

The findings indicated that dealers associated with JSW Paints hadn't substantially increased productivity despite the expansion of JSW Paints' dealer network. Asian Paints justified some of its actions as standard business practices rather than attempts to impede JSW Paints' market presence.

Despite the acknowledgment of Asian Paints' dominant position, the case was closed, finding no conclusive evidence of contravening Sections 4 and 3(4) of the Act.

This case raises concerns about the potential for a dominant market player like Asian Paints to influence its dealer network, possibly excluding competition. While the CCI found no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, the acknowledgment of Asian Paints' dominance suggests a scenario where dealers might have been hesitant to go against the dominant brand, potentially limiting consumers' choices.

As a response, JSW Paints has lodged an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against the final order issued by the CCI, alleging Asian Paints' abuse of dominant position.