Disposed¶22

Agi Greenpac Limited v. Competition Commission of India

Delhi HC16 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/1780/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

CCI directed to consider and decide the Petitioner's representations dated 24 November 2025 and 17 December 2025, in accordance with law, within 6 weeks; maintainability objections expressly kept open; petition disposed of. ¶22

Agi Greenpac Limited Vs Competition Commission of India — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Competition Commission of India should be directed, by way of a writ of mandamus or otherwise, to expeditiously dispose of the Petitioner's subject representations dated 24 November 2025 and 17 December 2025, after granting an opportunity of hearing, within a time-bound period. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Considering that CCI was already considering the representations, the Court's role was confined to setting a timeline: the Respondent (CCI) was directed to consider and decide the Petitioner's representations dated 24 November 2025 and 17 December 2025 in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The aforesaid direction shall not be construed as overruling the Respondent's objection as to plea of maintainability; all such objections are kept open and may be urged, if necessary, in any proceedings that may arise from the decision on the representation.

¶22

Key takeaways

The present petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.; order dated 16.03.2026) disposed of W.P.(C) 1780/2026 filed by AGI Greenpac Limited seeking a direction (writ of mandamus) to the Competition Commission of India to expedite disposal of its representations dated 24 November 2025 and 17 December 2025 with an opportunity of hearing. CCI's counsel objected that the petition was not maintainable for want of any statutory provision mandating consideration of such representations, but conceded on instructions that the representations were under “active consideration”. Since the Commission was already seized of the representations, the Court confined itself to setting a timeline and directed CCI to consider and decide them in accordance with law within 6 weeks. The Court expressly clarified that this direction would not be construed as overruling the maintainability objection, all such objections remaining open for any future proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Court's earlier order dated 08 July 2025 in W.P.(C) 9079/2025 taken in similar circumstances; counsel for Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. (R-2) noted that an identical issue was pending before the National Company Law Tribunal.

¶1

$~80

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1780/2026, CM APPL. 8635/2026, CM APPL. 15873/2026 & CM APPL. 15874/2026

¶4

AGI GREENPAC LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Senior Advocates with Mr. Akshay Nanda, Ms, Vaishali Goyal, Mr. Raahul Sharma, Mr. Rahul Dhingra, Mr. Rohan Malhotra, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Mr. Abhishek Nain, Ms. Rishika Agrawal, Ms. Priya Tyagi, Mr. Rishank Tripathi, Ms. Srishti Juneja, Ms. Kanika Singh, Mr. Saurav Deep, Advocates.

¶5

versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Udayan Jain, Mr. Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Harsh Jaiswal, Advocates for CCI. Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Manini Roy, Ms. Nandini Acharya, Ms. Sanjana Rai, Advocates for the Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd./R-2. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Siddhant Kant, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Moulshra Shukla, Ms. Gayathri Balasubhramanian, Advocates for Committee of Creditors of HNGIL. Mr. Yadunath Bhargava, Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocates for Intervenor. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Ms. Manini

¶6

This is a digitally signed order.

¶7

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2026 at 13:42:15

¶8

Roy, Ms. Nandini Acharya and Ms. Sanjana Rai, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 16.03.2026

¶13

The present petition seeks following prayers:

¶14

“a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent to expeditiously dispose off the Petitioner’s Subject Representations dated 24^th November 2025 and 17^th December 2025, after granting the Petitioner as opportunity of hearing, in a timebound period as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court; and / or

¶15

b) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid representations are pending consideration before the Respondent and require expeditious disposal. Reliance is also placed on order dated 08^th July, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) 9079/2025, whereby, in similar circumstances, this Court had directed CCI to decide the Petitioner’s representations, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶17

Counsel appearing for the Competition Commission of India, at the outset, raises an objection as to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that there is no statutory provision mandating consideration of such representations. However, upon a query from this Court with regard to the present status of the representations, it is submitted, on instructions, that the same are presently under “active consideration”.

¶18

Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Counsel appearing for the successful resolution applicant, Independent Sugar Corporation Limited, though not a party to the present petition but appearing in connected matters, submits, on

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2026 at 13:42:15

¶21

instructions, that identical issue is presently pending consideration before the National Company Law Tribunal.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, considering the fact that the CCI is already considering the representations, the Court’s direction would only set the timeline. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representations dated 24^th November, 2025 and 17^th December, 2025, in accordance with law, within a period of 6 weeks from today. 6. It is clarified that the aforesaid direction shall not be construed as overruling the Respondents’ objection as to plea of maintainability. All objections of the Respondents in this regard are kept open and may be urged, if necessary, in any proceedings that may arise from the decision on the representation.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.

¶24

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶25

MARCH 16, 2026/ab

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2026 at 13:42:15

Agi Greenpac Limited v. Competition Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agi Greenpac Limited v. Competition Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antique Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Vinay Sehrawat & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ayush Thakur Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Chahat Choudhary Vs National Medical Commission and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Aps Hydro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Tuheena Mukherjee Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pinki and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Kailash Chand Gupta Vs Punjab National Bank

Om Prakash and Anr. Vs Tyhe Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Pratima Kumari Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vivek Utpal Vs Union of India & Ors.