J U D G E M E N T

( 20 .05.2026)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by two appellants i.e. Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies (“CIABC”), who is Appellant No.1 herein and Association of Distillers, Brewers and Vintners of India (“ADBVI”), who is the Appellant No. 2 herein, under Section 53 (b) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the “Competition Act/Act”) challenging the Impugned Order dated 21.10.2021 in Case No. 10 of 2021 passed by the Competition Commission of India under Section 26 of the Competition Act.

Competition Commission of India (CCI) is the Respondent No.1 herein. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited, is a government corporation established under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (formulated under the Cochin Akbari Act, 1077 (“Akbari Act”), is the Respondent No.2 herein.

Travancore Sugar and Chemicals Limited, who is a government owned and controlled distillery, is the Respondent No.3 herein.

2. It has been stated that Appellant No. 1 was incorporated on 30.07.1998 as a non-profit public limited company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, now corresponding to Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellant No. 1 is an industry association representing alcohol beverage companies in India and companies closely associated with the Indian alcohol beverage industry and its members include both international and domestic companies engaged in several branded segments of the alcoholic beverage market. The Appellant No. 2 is an association representing large, small, and medium-scale distillers operating in the State of Kerala. We note that both Appellant No.1 and Appellant No.2 have pleaded on same facts and grounds, hence, we shall record their pleadings in conjoint manner and refer them collectively as the Appellants hereinafter.

3. It is noted that Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited, i.e. Respondent No. 2, is a government corporation established under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, with exclusive control over procurement and wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages in Kerala and the Respondent No. 3 is a government-owned distillery from which Respondent No.2 procures alcohol along with other private manufacturers.

4. The Appellants submitted that on 29.04.2020, the Appellants filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act before Respondent No. 1. The Appellants contended that the information clearly disclosed abuse of dominant position by Respondent No. 2 in the relevant market, namely the market for procurement and wholesale distribution of branded alcoholic beverages in the State of Kerala.

5. The Appellants stated that the information relied on the legal and regulatory framework governing liquor procurement in Kerala to show that Respondent No. 2 occupied a monopsony position, meaning it was the exclusive purchaser of alcoholic beverages from private manufacturers. The Appellants submitted that this position made Respondent No. 2 dominant in the relevant market, since private manufacturers had no meaningful alternative buyer for their products. The Appellants further relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Kerala vs Maharashtra Distilleries Limited, (2005) 11 SCC 1 to support the proposition that the State-controlled procurement structure itself established dominance.

6. The Appellants contended that Respondent No. 2 had abused its dominant position through a series of unfair and unilateral trade practices including unilateral fixation of purchase prices, arbitrary tender conditions, discriminatory treatment between government and private manufacturers, delayed payments, and the imposition of additional charges without justification. The Appellants further stated that these practices were not isolated instances but reflected a continuing pattern of coercive conduct arising from Respondent No. 2’s dominant position.

7. The Appellants submit