top of page

CCI Rejects Case Over Jurisdictional Limits: No Competition Law Violations Found


The recent decision by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) in the case of A V Satheeshkumar vs. Chief Manager/CEO Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.[i] addressed the ambit and scope of the CCI’s jurisdiction, specifically distinguishing between issues of competition law and cases of general fraud and general civil disputes involving financial misconduct and fraud. This ruling reinforced the necessity for complaints to explicitly invoke specific provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’) to fall within the CCI’s purview. Further, the judgment also laid down the importance of the principle of locus standi and the procedural rigour required to establish a prima facie case of anti-competitive behaviour.

Brief Facts

  • Mr. A V Satheeshkumar (‘Informant’) executed sale deeds for his property to Mr. George Mathew under an agreement that the property would be reconveyed after repaying the loans intended to alleviate his financial distress.

  • Mr. George Mathew, without informing the Informant, used those sale deeds to secure loans from the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (‘CSB Bank’). CSB Bank initiated recovery proceedings against the Informant’s property upon his defaulting on these loans.

  • The Informant discovered this fraud later when he received a possession notice from CSB Bank. He subsequently filed multiple legal actions, including a suit in the District Court, which granted a temporary stay on eviction and a suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is still pending.

  • The Informant alleged collusion between Mr. Mathew and CSB Bank officials and sought interim relief under s. 33 of the Act from the CCI to halt recovery actions until the CCI investigated the matter. Additionally, it should be noted that the Informant did not make Mr. George Mathew the party to the proceedings here.


  • The CCI determined that no prima facie case of contravention of the Act’s provisions by CSB Bank had been made out. Consequently, the information was ordered to be closed under s. 26(2) of the Act and rejected the request for interim relief under s. 33 of the Act. It was held that issues in the case should involve anti-competitive practices or impact market competition, which are the primary concerns of the Act.

  • Upon examining the information, the CCI noted that the informant failed to cite any specific provisions of the Act that had been violated.

  • The CCI observed that the case involved allegations of fraudulent conduct and improper use of sale deeds to secure loans. This action did not pertain to competition law violations but led to recovery actions against the Informant's property.

Our Analysis

The ruling critically scrutinized the CCI’s jurisdictional boundaries, emphasizing that it can only address issues directly related to anti-competitive practices. Allegations of fraud or financial misconduct without implications for market competition fall outside the CCI’s mandate. This distinction ensures that the CCI’s resources and expertise are focused on maintaining fair competition rather than being diverted to general civil disputes.

Moreover, the case highlights the necessity for complainants to specify the provisions of the Act that have been violated to establish a prima facie case. Vague or general allegations are insufficient to invoke the CCI’s jurisdiction. This requirement for specificity ensures that only genuine competition law issues are brought before the CCI, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the CCI’s regulatory role.

This ruling underscores the procedural aspect of including all relevant parties. The Informant’s failure to include Mr. Mathew weakened his case. Therefore, thorough legal groundwork is necessary for competition complaints to ensure all parties involved in the alleged anti-competitive conduct are included appropriately in the proceedings.

Finally, the ruling underscores the importance of seeking redress through the appropriate legal forums. Issues related to fraud or property disputes should be addressed in civil courts or other relevant tribunals, not the CCI. This clarification directs grievances to the appropriate judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, streamlining the resolution process and ensuring the CCI remains focused on its primary objective of regulating and promoting fair competition.

End Note

[i]  [2024] 162 556 (CCI)

Authored by Muskaan Jain, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.


bottom of page