The Bar Council of India does not permit advertisement or solicitation by advocates in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.khaitanco.com, you acknowledge and confirm that you are seeking information relating to Khaitan & Co of your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by Khaitan & Co or its members. The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. No material/information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice. Khaitan & Co shall not be liable for consequences of any action taken by relying on the material/information provided on this website. The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Khaitan & Co.

Please accept the above


See all results for ""

The Competition Commission of India finds no evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Chhattisgarh Chemist and Druggist Association and pharmaceutical companies


On 5 July 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed allegations that the Chhattisgarh Chemist and Druggist Association (CCDA) controlled the supply of medicines in the State of Chhattisgarh in cohorts with the pharmaceutical companies Alkem Laboratories Limited (Alkem), Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (Intas), and Koye Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (Koye).[1]


On 14 August 2019, the CCI received a complaint which alleged that the CCDA had coerced pharmaceutical companies to pay Product Information Service (PIS) charges, as a precondition for the launch of new medicines in the State of Chhattisgarh.

The complaint referenced certain news articles which reported that the CCDA was generating revenues between INR 50,000 / - to INR 5,00,000 / - from each pharmaceutical company, through the levy of PIS charges. These charges were purportedly being collected under the garb of payments towards the CCDA’s “building and bulletin fund”.

Based on an examination of the complaint, the CCI was of the prima facie opinion that the CCDA had imposed anticompetitive PIS charges, in contravention of Section 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act).

Thereafter, the CCI passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act directing the Director General, Competition Commission of India (DG) to investigate the conduct of the CCDA (Prima Facie Order). The CCI also directed an investigation into the conduct of Alkem, Intas, and Koye. Interestingly, no specific allegation had been made against these pharmaceutical companies in the complaint.

Investigative Findings

Subsequent to the Prima Facie Order, the DG initiated its examination into the conduct of CCDA and the pharmaceutical companies identified by the CCI.

The scope of the DG’s investigation was two-fold. First, whether the payment of PIS charges to the CCDA was mandatory for the launch of new medicines. Second, whether the CCDA was controlling / limiting the appointment of stockists in the State of Chhattisgarh by requiring potential stockists to obtain No Objection Certificates (NOC) from the CCDA. Notably, the Prima Facie Order had not directed the DG to investigate the requirement of NOCs by the CCDA.

On the levy of PIS charges, the DG concluded that the CCDA had coerced pharmaceutical companies to make payments to the CCDA prior to the launch of new medicines. The conclusion of the DG was based on, inter alia, the email dump of CCDA, a third-party statement by Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (Macleods), exchanges between the CCDA and the All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists (AIOCD), etc.

To this end, the DG found that the CCDA had contravened Section 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act. Two office bearers of the CCDA were also found liable under Section 48 of the Competition Act. The DG, however, did not record any findings against the pharmaceutical companies under investigation.

On the issue of NOCs, the DG found that there was insufficient evidence to ascertain whether prospective stockiests were required to obtain an NOC from the CCDA. Here too, the DG did not record findings against the pharmaceutical companies under investigation.

Alkem, Intas and Koye parallelly preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi to challenge the scope of the DG’s investigation.[2] However, the DG finalised the DG Report during pendency of the writ and submitted it before the CCI. Subsequently, and for the reasons set out below, the CCI closed the matter.

Analysis and Findings of the CCI

As a first step, the CCI analysed the material on record to determine whether the payment of PIS charges had been made mandatory by the CCDA.

The CCI reviewed the submissions of several pharmaceutical companies (such as, Intas and Koye) which had been made before the DG. Except Macleods, every pharmaceutical company had submitted  that the launch of medicines was not impeded by the CCDA for want of PIS. Instead, the payment of PIS was made on a voluntary basis towards the publication of information on new launches in the CCDA bulletin. Such publication leveraged the wide network of CCDA and facilitated the dissemination of information regarding the new medicine to stockists and retailers.

As for Macleods, the CCI acknowledged their submission that the PIS charges were mandatory. However, Macleods had also stated that (i) the CCDA had never hindered the launch of a new medicine in the State of Chhattisgarh, and (ii) there had been instances wherein PIS was paid after the launch of a medicine. Given this, the CCI was of the view that pharmaceutical companies made the voluntary payment of PIS charges to the CCDA.

The CCI also noted the remaining evidence relied on by the DG including, email dumps and communications between CCDA and AIOCD. However, in light of the categorical submissions by several pharmaceutical companies that the PIS charges were paid voluntarily, the CCI was inclined to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of the CCDA. As regards the requirement of NOCs, the CCI did not delve into the question at all in its assessment.


Based on the above analysis, the CCI rejected the DG’s findings and held that the CCDA was not in contravention of Section 3(3)(b) read with 3(1) of the Competition Act. Further, in the absence of a contravention by the CCDA, no question of individual liability of the office bearers of CCDA arose. Much like the DG, the CCI too did not make any observations against the pharmaceutical companies.

Accordingly, the CCI exonerated the CCDA and closed the matter.

Khaitan & Co successfully represented Alkem Laboratories Limited and Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited before the CCI in the matter.

Manas Kumar Chaudhuri (Partner), Sagardeep Rathi (Partner), Aman Singh Baroka (Senior Associate), and Alisha Mehra (Senior Associate) represented Alkem Laboratories Limited

Pranjal Prateek (Partner), Ebaad Nawaz Khan (Senior Associate), Armaan Gupta (Associate) represented Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited

-         Khaitan & Co Competition / Antitrust Team

For any queries please contact: editors@khaitanco.com

[1]   In Re: Alleged anti-competitive practices by the Chhattisgarh Chemist and Druggist Association in limiting supply of drugs / medicines in the State of Chhattisgarh (Suo Motu Case No. 04 of 2020) dated 5 July 2022.

[2]      Alkem Laboratories Limited and Another v. Competition Commission of India and Others (Writ Petition (C) 6015 / 2021) and connected matters.


We have updated our Privacy Policy, which provides details of how we process your personal data and apply security measures. We will continue to communicate with you based on the information available with us. You may choose to unsubscribe from our communications at any time by clicking here.

For private circulation only

The contents of this email are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the professional views of Khaitan & Co and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. Khaitan & Co disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.

© 2021 Khaitan & Co. All rights reserved.


One Forbes
3rd & 4th Floors, No. 1
Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg
Fort, Mumbai 400 001


119/65, First Floor
Dr Radhakrishnan Salai
Chennai 600 004,


Max Towers
7th & 8th Floors
Sector 16B, Noida
Gautam Buddh Nagar
201 301 India


Ocean Financial Centre
#37-02 10 Collyer
37th Floor Quay
Raffles Place 049315,