International Flavours And Fragrances Inc vs Competition Commission Of India
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case type
- Writ Petition Civil
- Decided on
- 23-02-2026
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2527/2026, CM APPL. 12258/2026 & CM APPL.
12257/2026
Date of Decision : 23.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS AND FRAGRANCES INC
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Harman Singh Sandhu, Ms.
Manika Brar, Mr. Aashish Gupta,
Ms. Dhaniya Krishnan, Mr. Sai Singh
and Mr. Sohom Sarkar, Advocates.
versus
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Danish Khan, Mr. Aakrit Aditya
Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Nair,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 2527/2026 Page 1 of 5
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 13.08.2025
(“ Impugned Order ”) passed by the Respondent – Competition Commission
of India (hereinafter “ Commission ”) in Suo Moto Case No. 02 of 2025
passed under Section 26(1) read with Section 19 of the Competition Act,
2002 (“ the Act ”).
2. A perusal of the order reveals that the Commission suo moto , in terms
of Section 19(1) of the Act, and on the basis of information received under
Section 46 of the Act, has passed directions in terms of Section 26(1) of the
Act, directing the Director General to cause an investigation to be made, and
to submit an investigation report within a period of 90 days. The
investigation, it appears, pertains to the alleged labour-related co-ordination
on bilateral basis among certain fragrance and fragrance ingredients
manufacturers viz. Givaudan (Switzerland), Firmenich (Switzerland) and
International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF) (US) i.e., the petitioner.
3. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner presented various arguments and according to him the delay
in filing the information on the basis of which the impugned action has been
taken could not have been condoned on grounds of equity as vested rights
have accrued on the petitioner by virtue thereof. He submits that while
considering the aspect of limitation, the merits of the case cannot be looked
into. According to him, the question of limitation does not merely concern
procedural law, but rather, affects the substantive rights of the parties.
4. Though the Court fully agrees with the jurisprudential analysis and
legal submissions made by Mr. Kaul, however, on the facts of the instant
case, does not find any reason to interfere with the Impugned Order passed
by the Commission.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 2527/2026 Page 2 of 5
5. In the process of issuing the direction, the Commission has taken note
of the first proviso to Section 19(1) of the Act, which requires an
information or a reference to filed within three years from the date on which
the cause of action has arisen. The commission, importantly, has condoned
the delay under the second proviso to Section 19(1) rendering a finding that
sufficient cause has been made out.
6. The perusal of the Impugned Order would indicate that in paragraph
no. 10, the Commission considered the justification of the
informqant/applicant that subsequent to the dawn raids conducted by certain
competition authorities in March 2023, the informant/applicant initiated its
internal investigation in April 2023 and was first made aware of by its legal
advisers of the potential anti-competitive nature of labour-related
coordination. Furthermore, the Commission considered the
informant/applicant‟s stand of its having approached the Commission
promptly i.e., within four days of notification of the Competition
Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations („LPR‟) 2024, which
demonstrated its bona fide and willingness to cooperate.
7. The Commission in para. 11 also notes that the alleged labour-related
coordination between the entities may be still continuing, and the cause of
action, therefore, may still persist.
8. The nature of the enquiry which the commission seeks to undertake
under the said Act will also have to be looked into. The said Act provides a
remedy, keeping in view the economic developments of the country and to
prevent practices having an adverse effect on competition, to promote and
sustain competition in markets, to protect the interest of consumers and to
ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in the market in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 2527/2026 Page 3 of 5
India.
9. It also appears that pursuant to the notice issued by DG to the
petitioner on 01.09.2025 seeking certain information pertaining to the
investigation caused to be made. The petitioner submits that it has already
submitted its response dated 03.10.2025, 16.10.2025 and 20.11.2025.
10. If at this stage, the Commission is interdicted to proceed with the
enquiry despite it rendering findings of sufficient cause being made out to
condone the delay of limitation, the same would be against the mandate of
the Act and the purpose for which the Commission has been set up. The
scope of inquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution is narrow and does
not extend to stepping into the shoes of the expert-body, and replacing the
writ Court‟s opinion with that of the authority/body concerned. A degree of
deference ought to be given to the specialised authority set up under a
statute. No perversity or non-application of mind has been made out.
11. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the case of CCI v. Steel
1
Authority of India , has held that direction passed under Section 26(1) of
the Act are mere administrative directions which do not concern the
adjudicatory process, and no rights or liabilities of the parties get decided.
The material portion of the decision reads as under:
“ 38. In contradistinction, the direction under Section 26(1) after formation
of a prima facie opinion is a direction simpliciter to cause an investigation
into the matter. Issuance of such a direction, at the face of it, is an
administrative direction to one of its own wings departmentally and is
without entering upon any adjudicatory process. It does not effectively
determine any right or obligation of the parties to the lis. Closure of the
case causes determination of rights and affects a party i.e. the informant;
resultantly, the said party has a right to appeal against such closure of case
under Section 26(2) of the Act. On the other hand, mere direction for
investigation to one of the wings of the Commission is akin to a
1
(2010) 10 SCC 744.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 2527/2026 Page 4 of 5
departmental proceeding which does not entail civil consequences for any
person, particularly, in light of the strict confidentiality that is expected to
be maintained by the Commission in terms of Section 57 of the Act and
Regulation 35 of the Regulations.
39. Wherever, in the course of the proceedings before the Commission, the
Commission passes a direction or interim order which is at the preliminary
stage and of preparatory nature without recording findings which will bind
the parties and where such order will only pave the way for final decision, it
would not make that direction as an order or decision which affects the
rights of the parties and therefore, is not appealable. ”
12. In view of the aforesaid, the general principles concerning the law of
limitation may not have a direct bearing at this preliminary stage. The
Commission, importantly, was fully conscious about the three year
limitation period; however, it had a strong reason to condone the delay. The
said reason being that the concern highlighted may still be persisting. Hence,
the Commission was of the view that it is a case of a continuing cause of
action, which can be inquired into by the Commission.
13. At this stage, there is no adverse order against the petitioner and none
of its vested rights have been infringed on. Therefore, the investigation,
which is at such a preliminary and threshold stage does not warrant
interdiction.
14. The petition, therefore, is failed and the same is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2026/ anj/ksr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 2527/2026 Page 5 of 5