Attendees look and walk through the Hyundai Motor Co. booth at the Auto Expo 2016 in Noida. (Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg)

Madras High Court Rejects Hyundai Motor’s Plea On ‘Anti-Competitive’ Practices 

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Hyundai Motor India Ltd, assailing the CCI’s decision to investigate the company for alleged anti-competitive practices related to spare parts sale and after-sale service.

A division bench of justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and RMT Teekaa Raman recently dismissed the appeal filed by the company, challenging the February 4, 2015 order of a single-judge bench of the same court.

The judge had held that a permission to expand the scope of inquiry into the allegations could not be construed as a suo motu initiation of investigation by the director general of the Competition Commission of India.

Also read: Hyundai Motor Warns of More Pain From Tariffs After Profit Drops

The matter relates to a complaint lodged with the CCI in 2011 by a New Delhi resident, Shamsher Kataria, alleging anti-competitive practices by three carmakers in the country.

Following a direction, the additional director general of the CCI had in 2011 conducted a probe, which revealed that similar practices were adopted by a few other car manufacturers, and sought the CCI's permission to expand the scope of inquiry into the matter.

Hyundai's had challenged its inclusion claiming that the additional director general did not have the powers to include other companies that were not mentioned in the complaint.

The contention was rejected by the single-judge bench.

Subsequently, the company had filed the writ appeal.

Also read: Hyundai Motor Misses Estimates as Stronger Won Weighs on Profit

Upholding the order of the single-judge bench, the division bench said, "If the CCI had not issued a direction on April 26, 2011, the director-general could not have proceeded against all other manufacturers.

The direction issued by the commission on April 26, 2011, would tantamount to a direction. Therefore in our considered view, the question of overstepping of jurisdiction does not arise," it added.