Competition Commission of India Order in Rajeev Bakshi Vs Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

Case No. 09 of 2026

Page 1 of 11

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No. 09 of 2026

In Re: Shri Rajeev Bakshi Informant 161, Sukhdev Vihar, South Delhi, Delhi-110025

And

M/s Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd, Regd Office: Plot No 1A, Sipcot Industrial Area, Orgadam, Mattur Post, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu-602105

Corporate Office: Worldmark, Unit No 301, 3rd Floor, Tower 1, Maidawas Road, Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana 122001

Opposite Party (OP)

CORAM Ravneet Kaur Chairperson

Anil Agrawal Member

Sweta Kakkad Member

Deepak Anurag Member

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The Information has been filed by Shri Rajeev Bakshi (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’)against Nissan Motor India Pvt Ltd (‘Opposite Party’/ ‘OP’ ) alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

Case No. 09 of 2026

Page 2 of 11

2. The lnformant is stated to be one of the partners of a partnership firm “M/s You We and Cars” which was established in the year 2016. The Informant has stated that the firm has been functioning as an authorized dealer of the OP for the sale and servicing of Nissan vehicles in the territory of South Delhi and Faridabad.

3. The OP is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and selling of vehicles under the “Nissan” and “Datsun” brand of cars. The OP`s parent, Nissan, is a Japanese multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan. In 2017, Nissan was the sixth largest automaker in the world, after Toyota, Volkswagen Group, Hyundai Motor Group, General Motors, and Ford. With a revenue of $78 billion in 2022, Nissan was the ninth largest automobile maker in the world.

4. The Informant has stated that its relationship with the OP is governed under a Dealership Agreement dated 01.10.2024, executed on a standard-form basis without any scope for negotiation, and there was imbalance of bargaining power in favour of the OP. The Informant stated that acting in furtherance of its obligations under the said agreement and based on repeated assurances of continuity and support, the Informant has made substantial investments exceeding INR 10 Crore, including investments in infrastructure, plant and machinery, inventory, manpower and business development. The Informant stated that as on September 2025, it continued to have significant operational exposure in the form of inventory, demo vehicles and parts, all of which are intrinsically linked to the OP's ecosystem and incapable of alternative commercial use.

5. The Informant has alleged that despite such investments, the OP has, in a wholly arbitrary and unilateral manner, issued a termination notice dated 05.09.2025 invoking Clause 16 of the Dealership Agreement, without issuing any show cause notice, assigning any reasons and affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby seeking to terminate the dealership mid-term, even though the agreement was valid up to 31.03.2026.

Case No. 3 of 2026

Page 3 of 11

6. The Informant has submitted that the termination of the agreement is not an isolated contractual act but forms part of a broader pattern of conduct adopted by the OP, including coercive pricing policies, forced investments, delayed reimbursements, bypassing of dealer networks and systematic erosion of dealer viability, which collectively constitute anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominance within the meaning of the Act.

7. The Informant has submitted that the Information squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, as the conduct complained of, pertains to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position. It has been stated that the relationship between the Informant and the OP constitutes a vertical arrangement within the meaning of Section 3(4) of the Act and the conduct of the OP, including imposition of resale price maintenance, exclusive distribution and refusal to deal, has resulted in appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. Further, the OP, by virtue of its control over supply, inventory allocation, branding, spare parts, warranties and dealership continuation, enjoys a position of dominance vis-à-vis its authorized dealers, including the Informant and has abused such dominance in violation of Section 4 of the Act.

8. The Informant has stated that the issues raised are distinct from contractual disputes and pertain to competition law violations and therefore the pendency of parallel proceedings before courts or arbitral forums does not oust the jurisdiction of the Commission.

9. The Informant has submitted that the relevant market in the present case is the market for "distribution and sale of Nissan branded passenger vehicles and related after-sales services in India" and more particularly the vertically integrated dealer-specific market controlled by the OP. Within the aforesaid relevant market, it is alleged that the OP is dominant vis-à-vis its authorized dealers due to complete economic dependence, absence of alternative supply sources and high switching costs.

Case No. 09 of 2026

Page 4 of 11

10. The Informant has alleged that the OP has imposed vertical restraints in violation of Section 3(4) of the Act, including resale price maintenance by controlling dealer pricing while undercutting dealers through direct and distress sales, exclusive supply arrangements by controlling inventory allocation and refusal to deal by bypassing authorized dealers and engaging directly with third parties, thereby foreclosing competition.

11. The Informant has submitted that the OP has abused its dominant position in violation of Section 4 of the Act by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in purchase and sale of goods, including one-sided termination clauses, coercive pricing policies and forced investments, all of which exploit the Informant's economic dependence. It is further submitted that the abrupt termination of the dealership without notice, reasons or opportunity of hearing constitutes denial of market access under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act, as it effectively excludes the Informant from the OP`s distribution network despite substantial investments and absence of any attributable breach. It is stated by Informant that the conduct of the OP further constitutes margin squeeze, as it controls upstream pricing while simultaneously undercutting downstream dealers, thereby rendering dealer operations commercially unviable and eliminating intra-brand competition. The Informant has also alleged that OP has leveraged its dominance in the upstream market to strengthen its position in downstream distribution by bypassing dealers and consolidating direct control over sales channels, thereby contravening Section 4(2)(e) of the Act.

12. The Informant has stated that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid conduct has caused appreciable adverse effect on competition in India, including foreclosure of dealer competition, distortion of pricing mechanisms, reduction of consumer choice and consolidation of market power.

13. The Informant has filed an Interim Application (‘IA’) No. 89 of 2026 under Section 33 of the Act seeking “appropriate interim directions restraining the Opposite Party from giving effect to the termination notice and from taking any coercive steps against the Informant during the pendency of the present proceedings.”

Case No. 09 of 2026

Page 5 of 11

14. The Informant has prayed for the following main reliefs: a) To direct the Director General to cause an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act; b) To hold that the OP has contravened Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act; c) To pass cease and desist orders restraining the OP from continuing such practices; d) To impose penalties under Section 27 of the Act; and e) To pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice

15. The Commission considered the present matter in its ordinary meeting held on 17.06.2026 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.

16. The Commission notes that the OP is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and servicing of vehicles under the Nissan and Datsun brands for commercial purposes and can be considered as an enterprise under Section 2(h) of the Act.

17. The existence of a prima facie case, under Section 3(4) of the Act, requires the existence of an agreement. The Commission notes that the relationship of the Informant and the OP is governed by the Dealership Agreement and the Informant has stated that certain clauses of the said agreement are in violation of Section 3(4) of the Act i.e. Clauses 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 amongst others. Clause 3.3.3 of Dealership Agreement is extracted here for reference: 3.3.3. The Authorized Dealer shall not without the written consent of NMIPL directly or indirectly, sell or participate in sales, distribution and/or service operations on any new and unused motor vehicles and/or spare parts other than NISSAN/DATSUN Products, nor accept any appointment by any person other than NMIPL to be its distributor, authorized dealer or agent for the sale, distribution and/or service operations on any motor vehicles and/or spare parts.”

18. In context of the allegations of the Informant, Section 3(1) and 3(4) of the Act are extracted here for reference: