Superior courts will not disturb discretionary orders condoning delay under the Competition Act.

The Respondent (Competition Commission of India/CCI) received information under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002, read with the Lesser Penalty Regulations, 2024, regarding alleged anti-competitive labour-related coordination in the Appellant’s industry

On August 13, 2025, the CCI initiated Suo Motu Case No. 02/2025, finding a prima facie contravention of Section 3 of the Act and directing the Director General (DG) to investigate under Section 26(1)

The CCI condoned the delay for information older than three years, citing the applicant’s internal investigation following international dawn raids and the need to protect worker interests

The Appellant challenged this order via a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on February 23, 2026

The Appellant then filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging the condonation of delay and the subsequent investigation.

1. Whether the CCI failed to record "sufficient cause" as mandated by the first and second provisos of Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, while entertaining information filed beyond the three-year limitation period.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its appellate jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary power exercised by the CCI and the Single Judge in condoning the delay.

The Court applied Section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, noting that the first proviso bars information filed after three years from the cause of action, while the second proviso allows for condonation if the Commission is satisfied there is "sufficient cause" and records its reasons

It relied on CCI v. Steel Authority of India (SAIL) (2010) 10 SCC 744, regarding the administrative nature of Section 26(1) orders

Furthermore, it applied the principles from Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, which establish that a liberal and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in matters of condonation of delay

The Court examined the CCI’s reasoning for condoning the delay, which included the fact that the applicant initiated internal investigations only after global dawn raids in March 2023 and approached the CCI promptly after the notification of the 2024 Regulations

The CCI had also considered the persistence of the cause of action and the broader economic implications of labour-related coordination, such as declining earnings among workers identified in the Economic Survey 2024

The Court found that the CCI was "sensitive" to the statutory mandate and had recorded specific reasons for its satisfaction regarding "sufficient cause"

The Court reasoned that once an authority exercises its discretion to condone delay positively, superior courts should generally respect that view unless a patent error of law exists

It concluded that the initiation of an investigation under Section 26(1) is an administrative step and the procedural aspects of condonation did not violate the Appellant's substantive rights in a manner requiring interference

The Division Bench refused to exercise its appellate jurisdiction to upset the discretionary orders and dismissed the appeal along with all pending applications

The Court further recorded a "word of protest" regarding the conduct and "body language" of the Appellant’s Senior Counsel during the proceedings