International Flavors And Fragrances Inc. vs Competition Commission Of India

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 15 April, 2026
+ LPA 266/2026 & CM APPL. 24416/2026, CM APPL.
24417/2026
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS &
FRAGRANCES INC.
THROUGH: ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, STEPHEN LANDSMAN,
th
521 WEST 57 STREET, NEW YORK,
NY - 10019-2960, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
.....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Harman
Singh Sandhu, Mr. Aashish
Gupta, Ms. Manika Brar, Ms.
Chandni Ghatak, Ms. Anshula
Sinha, Mr. Saii Siingh, Ms.
Manjira Dasgupta and Mr.
Shreyas, Advs.
Versus
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF
INDIA
THROUGH: ITS SECRETARY, MR.
INDER PAL SINGH BINDRA
th
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: 9 FLOOR,
OFFICE BLOCK-1, KIDWAI NAGAR
(EAST),NEW DELHI-110023
...RESPONDENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 1 of 10

Through: Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Danish Khan, Mr.
Aakrit Aditya Sharma and Mr.
Abhishek Nair, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
CHALLENGE
1. The appellant has invoked the appellate powers of this Court
under the Letters Patent of Delhi High Court particularly of the clause
10 of the Delhi High Court, 1966, questioning the impugned judgment
rd
dated 23 February, 2026, delivered by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) 2527/2026.
2. Consequent to the aforesaid, the petitioner has further sought for
th
quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the respondent on 13
August, 2025, in S uo Motu C ase No.02/2025 and consequential steps
st
taken thereto, including notice dated 01 September, 2025.
FACTS
3. The necessary facts of the petition for deciding the appeal are as
under:-
i. The respondent received an information under Section 46 of the
Competition Act, 2002 ( hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Act’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 2 of 10

for the sake of brevity) read with Competition Commission of
India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2024 (‘LPR 2024’)
( hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Regulation of 2024’ for the
sake of brevity ) in respect of alleged labour-related coordination
in the appellant’s industry.
ii. After granting confidentially qua such information under Section
57 of the Act read with Regulation 8 of Regulations 2024, the
respondent initiated S uo Motu Case No. 02/2025 in terms of the
provisions contained in Section 26(1) of the Act.
th
iii. On 13 August, 2025, in the aforesaid proceedings, the
respondent passed an order thereby observing that a prima facie
case of contravention of the provision of Section 3 of the Act has
been made out, and directed the Director General (‘DG’) of the
respondent to investigate the matter under Section 26(1) of the
Act.
st
iv. Accordingly, a notice came to be issued to the appellant on 01
September, 2025, calling upon to provide certain detailed
information in respect of employees recruited. Followed by an
inspection of the record of respondent, which was allowed by the
th
respondent on 11 September, 2025. The certified copies which
th
sought by the appellant were received on 24 September, 2025.
th
v. The appellant, accordingly, preferred W.P. (C)2527/2026 on 16
February, 2026, before the learned Single Judge challenging the
th
order dated 13 August, 2025.
vi. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide
rd
impugned order judgment dated 23 February, 2026, as such this
th
appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 13 August,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 3 of 10

2025 passed by the respondent so also the judgment of the
rd
learned Single Judge dated 23 February, 2026.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Mr. Rajiv Nayar , learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would
strenuously urge that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ
petition in limine, failed to appreciate the statutory mandate prescribed
st nd
under the 1 and 2 proviso of Section 19(1) of the Act, as the order of
dismissal is passed in patent contravention of such provisions.
st
5. According to him, the 1 proviso in expressed terms provides that
the respondent shall not entertain an information or reference unless it
is filed within three years from the date on which “cause of action” has
arisen. However, second proviso provides that the delay in filing of
such information can only be condoned, in case, if there exists a
satisfactory “sufficient cause” for the same.
6. According to Mr. Rajiv Nayar , learned Senior Counsel, the
st
learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the very object of the 1
nd
and 2 proviso to Section 19(1) of the Act, as it failed to appreciate that
the respondent had failed to record the “sufficient cause” in support of
order condoning the delay.
7. Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel would claim that the order
impugned passed by learned Single Judge is without any reasoning.
The learned Single Judge has erroneously relied on the provision of
Section 26(1) of the Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in the
matter CCI v . Steel Authority of India , (2010) 10 SCC 744 ("SAIL
Judgement") .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 4 of 10

8. According to Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel, the order of
condonation of delay does not merely concern with the procedural part
of the proceedings but has rather adversely affected the substantive
rights of the appellant and that being so, the Tribunal as well as the
learned Single Judge has erred in endorsing the findings in support of
the condonation of delay.
9. So as, to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Nayar ,
learned Senior Counsel has specifically relied on the provision of
st nd
Section 19 (1) and proviso 1 and 2 of the Section 19(1). He has taken
us to the said provision which reads thus:-
“5. The two provisos to sub-section( 1) of Section
19 of the Act provide as follows:
"19. Inquiry into certain agreements and dominant
position -
(]) ....
Provided that the Commission shall not entertain
an information or a reference unless it is filed
within three years from the date on which the cause
of action has arisen:
Provided further that an information or a reference
may be entertained after the period specified in the
first proviso if the Commission is satisfied that
there has been sufficient cause for not filing the
information or the reference within such period
after recording its reasons for condoning such
delay. "
10. Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel thereafter has taken us
through the judgment of the learned Single Judge so also that of the
order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned herein.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 5 of 10

11. According to him, the impugned order condoning the delay is
liable to be quashed, thereby, setting aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, so also, that of the Competition Tribunal.
12. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has opposed the prayer, as according to him not only the
order of condonation of delay passed by the Tribunal is just and proper,
but also according to him the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge is quite justified.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING
13. Having appreciated the aforesaid submissions, we have gone
through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
14. The Tribunal, in para 8 of its order, has considered the very
st
statutory mandate provided under Section 19 (1) and the proviso 1 and
nd
2 , the Tribunal was sensitive to the fact that record pertains to the
period older than three years. However, proceeded to analyze the issue
of limitation with following observations:-
“8. At the outset, the Commission notes that the newly
introduced proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the
Act states that the Commission shall not entertain an
information or a reference unless it is filed within three
years from the date on which the cause of action has
arisen. Further, the Commission notes that the newly
introduced second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 19
of the Act states that an information or a reference may
be entertained by the Commission after the period
specified in the first proviso, if the Commission is
satisfied that there had been sufficient cause for not filing
the information or the reference within such period, after
recording its reasons for condoning such delay.
9. In the present matter, the evidence placed on record
pertains to a period older than three years, hence, it may
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 6 of 10

be argued that the Commission should not enter into this
inquiry.
10. The Commission notes the submissions of the
Applicant that subsequent to the dawn raids conducted
by certain competition authorities in March 2023, the
Applicant initiated its internal investigation in April
2023 and was first made aware by its legal advisers of
the potential anti-competitive nature of labour-related
coordination. The Applicant has submitted that they
approached the Commission promptly i.e. within four
days of notification of the Competition Commission of
India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations (LPR) 2024,
demonstrating its bona fide intent and willingness to
cooperate.
11. The Commission also takes note of the submissions
of the Applicant that labour-related co-ordination
between the alleged entities may be still continuing, even
though it is unable to produce more recent evidence in
relation to the same, and hence the cause of action still
persists.
12. It is noted from the Economic Survey 2024 that there
is not only decline in the employment levels but also
decline in earnings among all categories of workers, be
it casual worker or regular worker, despite soaring
inflation. For any worker, the ability to command
reasonable wages on the labour market is a most
important need. Apart from protecting the consumer
from anti-competitive harm, it is the imminent need to
protect such consumers in their role as workers, when
their ability to earn is harmed by unfair and anti-
competitive employer labour practices. Therefore, it
becomes all the more crucial to examine potential
labour-related coordination in order to prevent labour
exploitation and to promote competitive remuneration.
In light of the above position and considering the far
reaching implications of labour-related coordination in
a country like India, where large workforce is engaged
in a thriving market economy for sustained economic
development, the Commission finds the explanation
provided by the Applicant sufficient for condoning the
delay and hence, proceeds to inquire into the matter on
its merits.”
15. After the aforesaid order, the Commissioner has proceeded to
exercise powers under Section 26(1) of the Act, thereby directing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 7 of 10

Director General to investigate the matter and submit a report within 90
days.
16. The Learned Single Judge, while dealing with the aforesaid
issue, was conscious of the nature of reasons recorded by the Tribunal
in the matter of condonation of delay and as such, proceeded to record
the findings that the facts and circumstance of the case in hand, does
not warrant interference to be made in the impugned order of the
Commission, whereby delay was condoned.
17. The learned Single Judge proceeded to evaluate the very scheme
st nd
of Section 19(1) and 1 and 2 provisos thereto, and also the fact that
the proceedings and powers of the Commission in the given facts and
circumstance, to condone the delay.
18. The learned Single Judge was sensitive to the reasons recorded
by the Commission in the matter of condonation of delay which
compelled it to maintain the order of condonation of delay.
19. Similarly, reference to Section 26(1) of the Act and also
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of CCI v . Steel Authority of
India, (2010) 10 SCC 744, was referred to having regard to entire
proceedings being administrative one and justifying the order of
condonation of delay.
20. Even otherwise, from the judgment of the Apex Court in the
matter of the Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v . Mst.
Katiji & Ors ., (1987) 2 SCC 107 so also, in N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy, ( 1998) 7 SCC 123 , a consistent view is taken by the
Apex Court that a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be
adopted in the matter of prayer for condonation of delay.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 8 of 10

21. It is a settled position of law that once an Authority or a Court
condones the delay in positive exercise of its discretion, the superior
courts are normally not required to disturb it, rather respect such view
22. In the aforesaid backdrop, having appreciated the submissions
made by the learned Senior Counsel, we are not convinced to exercise
appellate jurisdiction to upset the order of the Commission so also that
of the learned Single Judge, particularly when we hardly see any error
of law to cause such exercise of powers.
23. That being so, we dismiss the present appeal.
24. This Court had heard Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel at
length, and after he concluded the arguments, the Court expressed its
view that it is not willing to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the
appellant.
25. Such option was made available to the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant so as to enable him to have option, to invite an order
from the Court or whether he intends to withdraw the present LPA by
keeping his option open to approach the Court at an appropriate stage
of the proceedings.
26. However, Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel sought permission
of this Court to continue his arguments, which this Court permitted.
27. Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel, when reopened his
arguments, started repeating the very same arguments and as such, this
Court prompted him to stop from re-arguing the matter.
28. Mr. Nayar , learned Senior Counsel has stated that he is not
granted fair opportunity of hearing to his satisfaction. The body
language, tone and attitude towards the court of the learned Senior
Counsel, in our opinion, was not befitting his stature. However,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 9 of 10

considering the standing of learned Senior Counsel and his stature, we
deem it appropriate to place the word of protest made by the learned
Senior Counsel as a part of this Order, that he had made a grievance
that he was not heard to his satisfaction.
29. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed of.
30. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
31. A copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2026/ sky/st
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRERNA
RAWAT
Signing Date:21.04.2026
18:44:43
LPA 266/2026 Page 10 of 10