Supreme Court Stays NCLAT Ruling That Set Aside CCI's Clean Chit To Chettinad Coal Terminal

The top court was hearing a plea filed by CICTPL against the NCLAT's January 21, 2026 judgment, which had overturned the CCI's April 9, 2021 decision and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

A Bench comprising Justices K. V. Viswanathan and Vipul M. Pancholi after hearing the parties, directed, “Issue notice to the respondents. Till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of further proceedings before the CCI.”

Appearing for Chettinad International Coal Terminal (Ennore Coal Terminal), Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, argued that the tribunal's order is self-contradictory and illusory, as it gives final findings on relevant market, dominance, and abuse, yet remands the matter to the CCI.

He submitted that the tribunal wrongly limited the market to a single port by excluding Krishnapatnam Port despite clear substitutability, and assessed dominance based only on 39% of users while ignoring the remaining 61%.

Having already rejected the CCI's market definition and held CICTPL to be dominant and abusive, he contended that nothing remains for remand, making the exercise legally unsustainable.

Advocate on Record Charu Mathur appeared for the Competition Commission of India.

The NCLAT on January 21, 2026, while examining the issue of relevant market and substitutability, emphasized that economic realities must guide competition analysis. It observed that “the relevant market is thus the 'area of effective competition” and that its determination depends on whether consumers can realistically switch between alternatives.

The appellate tribunal agreed with the assessment that coal, being a low-value and high-volume commodity, makes transportation cost a decisive factor, leading users such as power producers to prefer the nearest port for operational and economic efficiency. It observed that “Normally, users of port consumer like Appellant in this case would prefer the nearer port which is cost effective, providing same or similar standard of service,” emphasizing the importance of proximity in market definition.

On the issue of third-party charges, the tribunal said that both the DG and the CCI had accepted that these charges were mandatory in nature. It agreed with the DG's finding that the entities collecting the charges were controlled by the Chettinad group and that importers were compelled to pay them to access the terminal. The tribunal concluded that such conduct once dominance was established, “tantamount to abuse of its dominant position by the CICTPL.”

However, NCLAT set aside the CCI's order and sent the matter back to the Commission for a fresh decision.

The matter will be next heard on May 18.

Background

The dispute arose from an information filing by the Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association (TNPPA) before the Competition Commission of India alleging abuse of dominance by Chettinad International Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (CICTPL) at Kamarajar Port. It was claimed that after the 2011 ban on coal handling at Chennai Port, CICTPL became the only viable nearby terminal, raised tariffs, and imposed mandatory third-party charges, while distant ports were not practical substitutes due to high transport costs.

On April 9, 2021, the CCI closed the case, holding that CICTPL was not dominant after adopting a broader market definition including ports like Krishnapatnam. With that wider definition, Chettinad's market share appeared smaller and the CCI therefore concluded that it did not hold a dominant position.

On the Association's appeal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on January 21, set aside the CCI's order, holding that factors such as distance, transport cost and consumer dependence are crucial in defining the relevant market and that mere presence of other coastal ports does not establish substitutability.