Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Competition Commission of India vs. Monsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd, dated 2 September 2025, upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court. It reinforced the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) from investigating the matter alleged after a private settlement between Monsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd and applicant companies was effectuated. The apex court held that a private settlement between parties resolves the factual basis of the case, leading to cessation of the cause of action, stating that any further proceedings of CCI would be unnecessary.

However, the CCI in September 2025, in its order dismissing the allegation against GMR AIR Works of potential abuse of dominant power, held that “competition law proceedings are inquisitorial in nature and a private settlement cannot extinguish the same”. It had also refused to stay the proceedings after the parties entered into a settlement in 2023. This order by CCI seems to contradict the reasoning of the apex court.

In this article, I analyse the verdict of the Supreme Court in the Monsanto Pvt Ltd case and examine whether there is a conflict between the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Monsanto case and the CCI's approach in the GMR Air Works case.

Background of the case

Monsanto Pvt Ltd is an agro-manufacturing company which used to supply its patented cotton seeds to Indian buyers based on a licensing agreement. In 2016, the Indian buyers alleged that Monsanto charged excessive royalty terms. They filed a case against Monsanto Pvt Ltd, arguing that the company has abused its dominant position under section 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.

CCI, after a preliminary investigation, decided to proceed with the case. In response, Monsanto filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the jurisdiction of CCI. The petition was dismissed by a single judge in 2020. In between, Monsanto Pvt Ltd and the informant parties settled privately, agreeing on a new licensing agreement. Pursuant to the dismissal, Monsanto filed an appeal before a division bench. The high court decided the matter on two issues, which are:

1) Whether CCI can exercise its jurisdiction in matters related to the licensing of patents under the Patents Act, 1970?

2) Whether a private agreement between parties extinguishes the jurisdiction of CCI to proceed with the matter?

I shall confine my analysis to the second issue only. The division bench of the High Court held that a private agreement between the parties can extinguish the jurisdiction of the CCI.

Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

On the second issue, as mentioned above, the division bench ousted the jurisdiction of CCI, barring it from further proceeding with the investigation. The court held that “once a settlement has been reached between the informant and person against whom the information is filed, the very substratum of the proceedings by CCI is lost.” What it essentially means is that in cases of private commercial disputes, the basis of the case is the dispute of the parties involved. Once the same is resolved through any negotiation or settlement, that factual basis ceases to exist, thereby rendering any further proceeding unnecessary.

On the surface, the order appears to be restricting the jurisdiction of CCI, potentially stopping it from carrying out its essential function. However, the assertion is incorrect. The Delhi High Court, as well as the Supreme Court, essentially defined the jurisdiction of CCI instead of restricting it. They reiterated that CCI is a regulatory authority formed for the investigation and adjudication of matters relating to fairness in the market and customer welfare.

CCI was prevented from interfering in private commercial disputes, which did not have much impact on market conditions and competition. Therefore, the reasoning of the court aligns with the objectives of the formation of CCI.

The GMR AIR Works Case Contrast

This line of reasoning of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court is reflected in the recent case involving GMR AIR WORKS.

Back in 2019, Air Works India (Engineering) Private Limited (Air Works) filed an application to the CCI alleging abuse of dominant power by GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited (GHIAL) under section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The fact in issue pertained to the non-renewal of the licence by GMR in favour of Air Works.

Air Works argued that GHIAL intentionally refused to renew their licence to carry on business in the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA). According to Air Works, GHIAL did it in order to favour its subsidiary company GMR Aero Technic Ltd (GATL), which was a competitor of Air Works. The CCI ordered a probe by the Director General (DG).

In 2023, while the proceedings were going on, the parties entered into a private settlement, negotiating new licence terms. Subsequently, Air Works attempted to withdraw the complaint. However, CCI rejected the withdrawal, holding that competition proceedings are inquisitorial and not extinguished by private settlements. Consequently, in 2025, CCI relieved GHIAL of the allegation of abuse of dominant power. It did not find any substantial evidence to prove the same.

Do the Two Decisions Conflict?

The decisions by the Supreme Court and CCI are complementary to each other rather than conflicting. In the Monsanto case, the dispute of the parties had little to no effect on the market competition and consumer welfare. It was a purely private matter among them. Therefore, once the substratum (factual basis) of the case is resolved, the case is disposed of, and any further proceeding is not required. In this matter, ousting the jurisdiction of CCI is a necessary step to maintain its authority as a market regulator.

In contrast, the case involving GHIAL had a direct effect on market conditions and consumer welfare. Exclusion of CCI’s jurisdiction could have led to a failure in detecting an ‘appreciable adverse effect’ on competition in the downstream market of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad (RGIA), if it were present.

Conclusion and way forward

Supreme Court dismissal of the appeal affirms the position of CCI as a market regulator created for regulating market competition and customer welfare. It solidifies the legal point that CCI isn’t an adjudicator of private commercial disputes which have already been settled by the parties. The stance of CCI in the GMR case is a clear indicator of its unambiguous role as a competition regulator.

While the two judgments seem to contradict, they pave the way for a clearer understanding of the law. The Indian competition regime is relatively younger than its foreign counterparts. Decisions like these are the stepping stones to developing a comprehensive and effective practice of competition law.

Saswat Anubhav Mishra is a 4th year law student at SOA National Institute of Law.