Supreme Court Asks NCLAT To Expedite Appeal Against CCI's Rejection Of Antitrust Complaint Against AVEVA
The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to expeditiously hear the competition appeal filed by CT Infotech India Pvt. Ltd founder Velusamy Karuppannan against the Competition Commission of India's dismissal of his complaint alleging anti competitive conduct by British software company, AVEVA Group Ltd.
The case arises from an appeal filed by Karuppannan challenging an order of the NCLAT of 27 May 2026 by which his application seeking expeditious hearing of a competition appeal was not considered and the matter was simply listed for 3 August 2026.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi after hearing Karuppannan appearing in person, observed that it was not inclined to monitor proceedings before the NCLAT. The Bench, however, requested the appellate tribunal to "expedite the hearing of the appeal, taking into consideration the plea of the appellant."
Appearing in person, Velusamy Karuppannan submitted that his complaint before the CCI alleged anti-competitive practices by AVEVA Group. He told the Court:
"I founded a startup company in 2016 based on the Startup India motivation after leaving my job in Switzerland... I filed the information before the CCI in April 2025. Even though I submitted all the evidence and filed an IA, the CCI dismissed the matter without hearing the parties."
He further submitted that although he had filed a statutory appeal before the NCLAT, the tribunal was not taking up the matter despite hearing appeals filed later.
"The NCLAT is not even hearing the matter, My Lords. Matters registered after mine are being heard, but my matter is not. Even the respondent appearing for the Commission demanded a hearing, but somehow the matter is not listed.", he said.
Karuppannan also argued that the delay was causing continuing prejudice as the alleged anti competitive conduct was continuing unabated.
"After the CCI's dismissal order, the opposite party's anti-competitive conduct is going on in an exponential mode, which is creating irreversible harm. Even my interim application has not been considered."
Urging the Court to prescribe a timeline, he submitted that in another competition matter involving Google, the Supreme Court had fixed a time schedule for disposal. "My Lord, for Google, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a fixed timeline. Is it possible here also?" he asked.
The Court however, declined the request, observing, "No, we are not here to monitor the proceedings of the Tribunal."
It nevertheless requested the NCLAT to expeditiously hear the appeal, taking into account the appellant's plea for an early hearing.
Background
The dispute traces back to an information filed before the Competition Commission of India on 3 April 2025 alleging that AVEVA Group Ltd, a British software MNC had engaged in anti competitive conduct, including market foreclosure, vertical restraints and abuse of dominance. The CCI dismissed the information at the threshold under on 25 August 2025 following which the appellant preferred a statutory appeal before the NCLAT under Section 53B of the Act.
According to the appeal, the repeated adjournments violated the statutory mandate of expeditious disposal under Section 53B(5) of the Competition Act and infringed the appellant's fundamental rights by delaying adjudication of his challenge.
"The discrimination on the part of the Hon'ble NCLAT is without any basis and are violative of the Appellant's rights under Article 14 for being arbitrary and include violation of Article 21 for right to speedy justice. There is no likelihood that the Appellant's case would be decided by the Hon'ble NCLAT in reasonable time, much less the prescribed statutory period of six months.", the plea states.
The appeal also states that the prolonged delay in hearing the competition appeal allowed AVEVA's alleged anti competitive conduct to continue, causing ongoing business losses and irreparable harm to the appellant who contends that the delay also violated his fundamental rights.