No Hearing, No Explanation: Why the Delhi High Court Just Said the CCI Doesn't Have to Listen to You Before Closing Your Case

In KSD Zonne Energie LLP v. Competition Commission of India (2026 SCC OnLine Del 4634), decided on 14 May 2026, Justice Kaurav of the Delhi High Court held that a person who complains to the Competition Commission of India has no right to notice or a hearing before the CCI closes that complaint under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, for want of a prima facie case. The ruling leaned on the Supreme Court's decision in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. ((2010) 10 SCC 744). Here is the dispute behind the ruling, why that reliance on the Steel Authority of India case is more contested than it first appears, and what it means for anyone filing a complaint before the CCI.

A Small Solar Developer's Fight With Its Bank

KSD Zonne Energie LLP is a micro, small, and medium enterprise engaged in solar power development. Its grievance was against Canara Bank, and it was a serious one for a business of that size. KSD Zonne alleged that the bank retrospectively hiked interest rates on its loan, refused to release title documents needed for a loan takeover by another lender, and initiated SARFAESI proceedings against it. Believing this conduct amounted to an abuse of dominant position and an anti-competitive arrangement under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, KSD Zonne filed information before the CCI seeking an investigation.

On 19 May 2025, the CCI closed the matter. It found no prima facie case worth investigating further and passed its order under Section 26(2) of the Act. KSD Zonne was not given notice of the proposed closure, and it was not heard before the order was passed. It challenged that closure through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court.

What Section 26(2) Actually Does

The Competition Act gives the CCI a preliminary screening role before any full investigation begins. Under Section 26(1), if the Commission forms the opinion that a prima facie case exists, meaning there is enough on the face of the complaint to warrant a closer look, it directs the Director General to investigate. Under Section 26(2), if the Commission does not form that opinion, it closes the matter instead, and the informant's complaint goes no further. Neither provision expressly says whether the person on the other end of that decision, the party being investigated under Section 26(1), or the informant being turned away under Section 26(2), is entitled to be heard first. That silence in the statute is exactly what has kept this question alive in the courts.

The Steel Authority of India Case and What It Actually Decided

The Delhi High Court's ruling rests heavily on CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., a Supreme Court decision widely treated as the last word on notice requirements at the CCI's preliminary stage. But Steel Authority of India addressed a different scenario. That case concerned Section 26(1), an order directing an investigation into a company, and the Supreme Court held that the party under investigation does not need to be given notice or a hearing before that direction is issued, since it is only a preparatory administrative step rather than a final adjudication of anyone's rights. The six issues the Supreme Court actually framed and decided in that case were confined to Section 26(1). Whether an informant deserves a hearing before their own complaint is closed under Section 26(2), the opposite situation, was never before the Court in Steel Authority of India at all.

What the Delhi High Court Held

Extending the Steel Authority of India reasoning to this different scenario, Justice Kaurav dismissed KSD Zonne's writ petition, holding that the Commission is not obliged to give an informant notice before a Section 26(2) closure. The Court held that KSD Zonne's proper remedy lay in a statutory appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under Sections 53-A and 53-B of the Competition Act, not in a writ petition asking the High Court to intervene directly.

Why the Steel Authority of India Precedent Is Being Stretched

Treating Steel Authority of India as having settled the Section 26(2) notice question is a stretch, because that case simply never decided it. A precedent that answers one question, whether a target of investigation gets a hearing before an investigation begins, is being used here to answer the reverse question, whether a complainant gets a hearing before their complaint is shut down. Those are different interests and different stages of the process, and treating the first answer as automatically covering the second is the kind of precedent-stretching that keeps recurring in competition law procedure until a higher court is asked to address the Section 26(2) question head-on.

What This Means for Anyone Filing a Complaint Before the CCI

If you are considering filing information before the CCI, this ruling is a reminder to set expectations correctly. At least within the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction, you should not expect an opportunity to respond before your complaint is closed for want of a prima facie case. If a closure order does come, the available remedy is a statutory appeal to the NCLAT under Sections 53-A and 53-B of the Competition Act, not a writ petition, unless there is an independent and compelling constitutional ground to invoke one.

This blog is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on competition law complaints, CCI proceedings, or appeals before the NCLAT, please contact our team.