Introduction
India’s paint industry is currently experiencing significant expansion. Valued at USD 8.71 billion in 2024 and projected to reach USD 14.27 billion by 2030 at an average compound annual growth rate of 8.42% over its forecast period, its value has experienced exponential expansion since 2024. As of 2025, the Indian paint market is valued at approximately USD 10.46 billion, with projections estimating it could reach ₹1.3 trillion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 9.38%–12%. Out of this overall market size of USD 8.71 Billion in 2024, India’s decorative paint market size reached USD 3.28Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 5.47 Billion by 2033, growing at a CAGR of 5.42% during 2025-2033. This increase can be attributed to factors like faster urbanization, increasing disposable incomes and real estate market expansion which drive demand for decorative and protective coatings. Government initiatives, like “Housing for All” and the Smart Cities Mission, are helping stimulate residential and commercial construction activities, positively affecting decorative paint sales.
The Indian Paints market is highly competitive and dominated by a few major players. Particularly, in the decorative paint market, a fierce competition is being witnessed, which, with the entry of new market players with strong financial muscles, (like Birla Opus of Grasim Industries Ltd – An Aditya Birla Group Company and earlier JSW Paints), is now fast turning into corporate wars! The established players, including the market leader, Asian Paints Ltd., holding approximately 55-59% market share (Berger Paints holding approximately 18-18.6%, Kansai Nerolac Paints with approximately 15-17% and Azko Nobel (Dulux) with about 7% market share) are facing the heat with the entry of Birla Opus, (the newly started Paints business of Grasim Industries Ltd.) which , as per Media reports , has secured a 21% market share of the organized segment of the decorative paints sector and is now the second largest decorative paints player with an installed capacity of 1,096 million litres per annum( MLPA). Birla Opus, since its recent entry in March 2024, has been pushing hard to gain its market presence with extensive advertisement campaigns (with Bollywood Actor Vicky Kaushal and Rashmika Mandanna as their brand ambassadors for their “Naye Zamane Ka Naya Paint” campaign) and has acquired a 6.1% market share in the decorative pints market.
Similarly, another new entrant, JSW Paints’ market share in India has also grown significantly after its acquisition of Azko Nobel’s Dulux brand. Post acquisition, JSW Paints’ market share jumped to 9-10% from its earlier 2-3% in the decorative paints market and has become the fourth largest player, trying to catch up fast with the third largest, Nerolac paints !
However, what is interesting to note is that both these new entrants , despite their growing market shares , have approached the fair market regulator , the Competition Commission of India (CCI/Commission) against Asian Paints, the market leader , alleging abuse of its dominant position , with similar complaints of forcing exclusivity on its dealers by allegedly preventing the dealers from buying/storing paints and related machines of rival, JSW Paints and Birla Opus .
Here is a detailed appraisal of the two ongoing Antitrust cases against Asian Paints –
Asian Paints Limited (“Asian Paints”), the market leader in India’s decorative paints segment, is once again facing antitrust scrutiny as the Competition Commission of India (“CCI/Commission”) has ordered a detailed investigation into its market practices. In a recent order dated July 1, 2025 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“the Act”), the Commission directed the Director General (“DG”) to investigate allegations of Abuse of dominance as brought by the segment’s new entrant , BIRLA OPUS PAINTS , a brand owned by Grasim Industries Limited (“Informant”).
The Informant has alleged that Asian Paints is abusing its dominant position in the relevant market by engaging in exclusionary practices such as incentivising dealer exclusivity through arbitrary benefits and penalising those who deal with competitors. The Informant has further alleged that Asian Paints obstructed its market entry by coercing third parties, including suppliers, landlords, and transporters, and by launching a fake smear campaign.
These allegations are similar to those previously levelled by another competitor , JSW Paints Private Limited (“JSW Paints”) which could not be proved by JSW Paints before the DG during the investigation and consequently , were dismissed by the CCI through an order dated September 8, 2022 under Section 26(6) of the Act finding no contravention of the Act.
However, this raises a question. Does the CCI’s prima facie decision to order a fresh investigation despite the earlier closure of similar complaints/allegations made against the same company signals a potentially different assessment of the facts or market dynamics in the instant case? Or is it that the BIRLA OPUS provided some new evidence in support of its allegations? This renewed scrutiny raises important questions about the threshold for investigation in cases involving allegations of abuse of dominance under the Act.
Previous Case filed by JSW Paints
JSW Paints introduced their decorative paints in May 2019 in Bengaluru and Hubli. JSW Paints subsequently introduced its products in Kerala (Kochi and Kozhikode) in June 2019, followed by launches in Telangana (Hyderabad) and Tamil Nadu (Chennai) in August 2019. After the launch of decorative paints by JSW Paints, it was alleged that Asian Paints exerted pressure on dealers who had agreed to stock and showcase their decorative paint products to cease their dealings with JSW Paints. It was further alleged that Asian Paints halted supplies to the dealers, reduced service levels by delaying deliveries, instructed dealers to remove the products of JSW Paints from their retail shelves and remove their signage, and threatened them by withholding discretionary discounts and excluding them from loyalty programs. Considering the same, an information was filed JSW Paints before CCI alleging that Asian Paints was contravening Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act. Pursuant to which the CCI, formed a prima facie opinion and directed the DG to submit an investigation report. However, the DG found no evidence to support JSW Paints’ claims under Sections 4(2)(c) or 3(4). It was noted that JSW had added more dealers than Asian Paints during the relevant period, and only a few overlapping dealers provided weak or unverified claims. Other actions such as reduction of credit limits were alleged to be anti-competitive but were found by the DG to be commercially justified and part of the standard practice of Asian Paints. Thus, the DG concluded there was no contravention of Sections 3 or 4 of the Act.
The CCI, after considering the objections and suggestions by both parties, in its order dated September 8, 2022, under Section 26(6) of the Act, largely agreed with the report of the DG. The CCI delineated the relevant market to be “market for manufacture and sale of decorative paints by the organised sector in India.” Further, the CCI found that Asian Paints enjoyed a dominant position in the relevant market based on its consistently high market share of 38.99%, its size, resources and economic power as the increase in revenue of Asian Paints during the period of key abuse was three times that of its largest competitor, and the market structure as there have been no new entrants in the last ten years. Thus, Asian Paints enjoys a dominant position in the relevant market.
The Commission also emphasised that JSW Paints had added more dealers than Asian Paints during the relevant period, and a substantial number of JSW’s dealers (86.6%) were also common with Asian Paints, indicating that access to the distribution network had not been foreclosed. The CCI found that the allegation regarding denial of infrastructural facilities lacked credible evidence and appeared to arise from commercial disagreements rather than coercion by Asian Paints. Further, the claims of exploitative conduct through incentive schemes and coercive affidavits were not backed by reliable evidence. Therefore, after considering the investigation report and the submissions made by the Parties, the CCI was of the view that no case could be established against the Asian Paints.
JSW Paints have filed apeal against the CCI order dated Septemeber 8, 2022 before the Appellate Tribunal, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the same is pending adjuidcation.
Present Case filed by Grasim Industries Limited/Informant ( BIRLA OPUS)
Brief Facts & Allegations
The Informant entered the decorative paints market at the end of the last quarter of FY 2024 under the brand name ‘Birla Opus Paints’. The Informant has brought serious allegations against Asian Paints, asserting that it is abusing its dominant position in the market for “manufacture and sale of decorative paints in the organised sector in India”. In its information, the informants alleged that Asian Paints offers unrelated additional discounts, incentives, and even foreign travel to its dealers, which are without a transparent or performance-based policy. Instead, they are alleged to be contingent upon dealers with an intent that they maintain exclusivity with Asian Paints and not engage with the Informant.
The Informant further alleged that the promise of exclusivity is enforced through coercion and threats, and dealers who choose to stock the Informant’s products are met with retaliatory actions, including sudden reductions in credit limits, revisions to their service levels, and steep increases in their sales targets. These actions are then used as a pretext to withdraw the previously promised benefits like incentives and foreign travel. Further, it was alleged that such dealers suffer from a decline in customer leads and the termination of relationships with institutional clients. Additionally, Asian Paints often opens rival dealerships in close vicinity of the dealers who fail to fulfil the condition of exclusivity. The Informant alleged that Asian Paints pressurises its dealers to either return or refrain from installing the Informant’s “tinting machines”, which are supposedly more technologically advanced. Asian Paints was also alleged to have interfered with the Informant’s broader business operations by restraining third-party suppliers from providing raw materials and by coercing landlords, Clearing and Forwarding agents, and transporters into not engaging with the Informant, thereby creating serious logistical issues. Lastly, the Informant claims that Asian Paints has run a targeted smear campaign to tarnish its reputation and further limit its market reach. Therefore, considering the foregoing allegations the Informant submitted before the CCI that the conduct of Asian Paints is in violation of Section 4 ( prohibits abuse of dominance) of the Act.
Preliminary Proceedings before the CCI
Relevant Market and Dominant Position
The CCI noted that as the allegations brought forth by the Informant are with respect to the same market as the previous JSW’s matter, the relevant market in this case will also be delineated as the “market for manufacture and sale of decorative paints by the organised sector in India.” Further, with respect to the position of dominance, the CCI noted that as per the database of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Private Limited (“CMIE”), the market share of Asian Paints was 39.05% in the paints and varnish sector in 2022-23, and Asian Paints surpasses its largest competitor by more than three times. The CCI held that in the narrowly defined relevant market, the market share of Asian Paints is likely to be even higher, and therefore, owing to the market share, size and resources of Asian Paints vis-à-vis its competitors, its economic power and entry barriers prevalent in the defined relevant market, the CCI was of the view that Asian Paints enjoys a prima facie dominant position.
Abuse of Dominant Position
The primary allegation brought forth by the Informant pertained to the imposition of de facto exclusivity conditions on dealers. As the Informant alleged that Asian Paints coerced its dealers not to stock or sell the Informant’s products by using tactics such as arbitrary reductions in credit limits, increased sales targets, withdrawal of benefits such as foreign travel and discounts, reduction in customer leads, and even measures like opening rival dealerships nearby. The Informant also submitted a third-Party Market Survey to back its allegations that multiple dealers faced punitive actions for engaging with the Informant’s brand. These allegations were further substantiated by affidavits from the employees of the Informant and an audio recording of a conversation between the dealership Manager and a dealer of Asian Paints and the Informant, where the dealer was alleged to be stating that due to pressure from Asian Paints, the advertisement board of the Informant was removed from the shop of the dealer. The CCI prima facie observed that such conduct on behalf of the Asian Paints constituted imposition of unfair and discriminatory conditions on dealers, in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Further, it was alleged that Asian Paints obstructs the use and installation of the Informant’s technologically superior tinting machines at dealer outlets, which play a critical role in the sector as they facilitate custom colour mixing and are a necessary interface between the manufacturer and consumer. The Informant stated that their tinting machines had a 40% smaller physical footprint and were enabled with internet connectivity. Despite these advancements, the Informant claims that dealers were pressurised by Asian Paints to return or reject the machines, threatening the dealers of reduced support. In fact, the Third-Party Market Survey revealed that dealers were offered additional incentives or discounts by Asian Paints in exchange for not using rival machines, and this was further corroborated by affidavits of employees of the Informant. The CCI prima facie viewed this conduct being violative of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, technical comparison is necessary to evaluate whether it is violative of Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
It was further alleged that Asian Paints was pressuring third-party suppliers such as raw material vendors, transporters, C&F agents, and warehouse landlords into not dealing with the Informant. The Informant claimed that the CEO of Asian Paints, in an industry event in October 2023, warned vendors that supplying to the Informant would result in reduced business with Asian Paints. The Informant provided screenshots and affidavits by its employees showing how these coercive instructions led to cancelled or modified supply arrangements, thereby hampering its access to essential inputs and services. This behaviour was viewed by the CCI as prima facie constituting denial of market access under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act.
Based on the cumulative material provided, third-party market surveys, affidavits by employees, and audio recordings, the CCI concluded that a prima faciecase exists against Asian Paints for contravention of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the CCI passed an order under Section 26(1), directing the DG to conduct an investigation into the conduct of Asian Paints.
Understanding CCI’s Evidentiary Threshold
Although the CCI had closed the JSW Paints case by passing an order under Section 26(6) of the Act, the CCI directed that an investigation be conducted in the Grasim Industries Ltd. case on similar allegations. This raises an important question about the nature and sufficiency of evidence presented before the CCI in both cases.
It is pertinent to note that in the JSW Paints case, CCI held that there was a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the claims of coercion that were put forth by JSW Paints. The dealers of JSW Paints were also unable to confirm the coercive behaviour, thus leading the CCI to agree with the business justifications provided by Asian Paints. In contrast, the new case is accompanied by corroborated and substantial evidence, such as an independent Third-Party Market Survey, affidavits by the employees of the Informant, audio recordings and screenshots which implicate Asian Paints of such conduct, a list of 100 dealers who returned the tinting machines to the Informant owing to coercion by Asian Paints, etc.
Further, the JSW Paints case focused primarily on dealer exclusivity and vertical restraints, while the case by the Informant paints an image of a broader market-wide exclusion. The CCI found this conduct indicative of potential barriers to entry and foreclosure of the market beyond the typical vertical arrangements seen in the JSW Paints case, thereby requiring a deeper investigation. Additionally, while both cases highlighted the exclusive incentives, the JSW Paints case failed to establish that the incentives were arbitrarily linked to exclusivity and the evidence in the case by the Informant is promising as the data of the Third-Party Market Survey establishes that incentives such as foreign travel and loyalty programmes were offered not based on dealer performance or completion of sales target but as consideration for exclusivity.
Thus, the transition in evidence from unsubstantiated claims to credible and independently verifiable claims brought the difference between the two cases and satisfied the CCI’s threshold for a prima facie case since the JSW Paints case was primarily closed on the ground of insufficient evidence. This stance of the CCI aligns with its jurisprudence, such as in Reprographic Industries v. CCI, wherein the Appellate Tribunal held that a prima facie case demands credible material linking the alleged conduct to a potential appreciable adverse effect on competition. The CCI must be convinced that the information is substantial before it justifies further inquiry, rather than acting on mere conjecture or competitive rivalry. Therefore, owing to the substantial and corroborate evidence, the CCI passed an order under Section26(1), directing the DG to investigate the allegations levelled against Asian Paints.
Conclusion
The differing approach of the CCI in the JSW Paints and Grasim Industries cases reflects its nuanced manner of assessing allegations of abuse of dominance. While the CCI rightly dismissed the earlier case for lack of credible, corroborated material, the instant case presents substantial evidence such as independent surveys and employee affidavits which crosses the prima facie threshold. As competition law enforcement in India continues to grow, the case against Asian Paints may well become a defining moment in the jurisprudence surrounding the conduct of dominant entities and entry barriers in highly concentrated markets. However, like in the previous case of JSW Paints, in this case also Asian Paints will get the same opportunity to rebut the evidence presented by providing , inter alia, business justification etc if any. Let’s wait and watch for the conclusion of the DG investigation.
#Asian Paints #Birlaopus #abuseofdomiance #Competitionlaw #Antitrust
