CCI Closes Antitrust Complaint Against Nissan Over Dealership Termination

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Tuesday closed a complaint accusing Nissan Motor India Private Limited of anti-competitive practices in connection with the termination of a dealership agreement. It found no prima facie case that the company had entered into anti-competitive vertical arrangements or abused a dominant position.

A coram of Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag observed that the dealership cancellation was a standard commercial dispute.

"The cancellation of dealership is a standard commercial dispute. The Commission is of the view that in common parlance the freedom of contract and the selection of trading partners is a normal business practice rather than an anticompetitive practice.", the commission noted.

The complaint was filed by Rajeev Bakshi, one of the partners of You We and Cars, an authorised Nissan dealer. Bakshi alleged that after investing more than ₹10 crore under a dealership agreement executed on October 1, 2024, Nissan issued a termination notice on September 5, 2025. He claimed the notice was issued without assigning reasons, issuing a show-cause notice or granting an opportunity of hearing, even though the agreement remained valid until March 31, 2026.

According to Bakshi, the termination formed part of a broader pattern of anti-competitive conduct. He accused Nissan of imposing resale price maintenance, exclusive supply arrangements, refusal to deal, and other unfair conditions amounting to abuse of dominant position. He also sought an investigation by the Director General. In addition, he sought interim directions restraining Nissan from giving effect to the termination notice.

The Commission observed that Bakshi had not produced any evidence to show that Nissan had prevented its dealers from acquiring dealerships of competing manufacturers. It also noted that publicly available information showed Bakshi had acquired a VinFast dealership while the Nissan dealership was still subsisting. The Commission therefore rejected the allegation of exclusive dealership.

The Commission also rejected the allegation of resale price maintenance. It observed that the dealership agreement prohibited dealers from selling vehicles above the Maximum Recommended Retail Price (MRRP). At the same time, it expressly permitted them to sell below that price.

On the allegation of refusal to deal, the Commission observed that the dealership agreement allowed either party to terminate it by giving 90 days' notice. It also noted that the agreement did not require either party to assign reasons for the termination.

The Commission rejected Bakshi's proposed market definition of Nissan-branded passenger vehicles. Instead, it defined the relevant market as the "distribution and sale of passenger cars in India."

It observed that Nissan held less than one per cent market share in the passenger car market. It also noted that Bakshi had acquired another dealership and that consumers had multiple alternatives in the market.

"Therefore, prima facie, the OP does not appear to be dominant in the relevant market."

Finding no prima facie case of anti-competitive vertical arrangements or abuse of dominant position, the Commission closed the information. It also rejected Bakshi's request for interim relief.