Case No. 09 of 2026, Rajeev Bakshi v. M/s Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd

Background

The CCI examined allegations filed by an authorised dealer of Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (Nissan) in South Delhi and Faridabad, against Nissan under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act wherein, dealer was operating dealership since 2024 and had invested over INR 10 crore in infrastructure, machinery, inventory, and manpower. However, Nissan arbitrarily terminated the agreement without issuing a show cause notice, providing reasons, or offering a hearing. The informant alleged that the termination formed part of a broader pattern of anti-competitive conduct by Nissan, including coercive pricing policies, forced investments, delayed reimbursements, bypassing of dealer networks, and systematic erosion of dealer viability. The specific allegations encompassed vertical restraints under Section 3(4) of the Act i.e., resale price maintenance, exclusive supply/distribution arrangements, and refusal to deal as well as abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Act through imposition of unfair and discriminatory conditions, denial of market access, margin squeeze, and leveraging of dominance.

CCI Findings

On the allegation of exclusive dealing and restrictive vertical agreements under Section 3(4), the CCI relied on its earlier precedent in Fx Enterprise Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., where it had held that a similar exclusivity clause in a dealership agreement did not, in form or in practice, restrict dealers from operating other Original Equipment Manufacturer (‘OEM’) dealerships. Further the informant failed to furnish any evidence demonstrating that Nissan had actually restricted its dealers from acquiring competing dealerships. Significantly, publicly available information from the informant’s own website showed that the firm had acquired a dealership with VinFast (a Vietnamese car manufacturer) while its Nissan dealership subsisted directly contradicting the claim of exclusivity being enforced.

On the allegation of resale price maintenance, the CCI examined the dealership agreement and found that while dealers were required not to sell above the Maximum Recommended Retail Price (‘MRRP’), they were free to sell at any price below the MRRP. Since there was no condition imposed regarding a minimum price or discount floor, the allegation of resale price maintenance was held to be without substance. The allegation of refusal to deal was similarly rejected, as the termination had been carried out pursuant to the dealership agreement which allowed either party to terminate upon 90 days’ notice without assigning reasons, the CCI observing that freedom of contract and selection of trading partners is a normal commercial practice rather than an anti-competitive one.

On the abuse of dominance allegations, the CCI disagreed with the informant’s proposed relevant market (limited to Nissan-branded vehicles) holding instead that the relevant market should be delineated as ‘distribution and sale of passenger cars in India’. Upon examining publicly available sales data for FY 2026, the CCI found that Nissan held a market share of merely 0.48% making it the 11th largest passenger car manufacturer in India by sales, far behind other competitors including Maruti Suzuki (39.71%), Mahindra & Mahindra (13.42%), Tata Motors (13.04%), and Hyundai (12.29%). Further, Nissan’s market share was miniscule and that the informant itself was not restrained from dealing with other manufacturers and concluded that there was no dependence on Nissan by either the informant or consumers at large who were free to exercise options with other car manufacturers. In view of the foregoing, the CCI held that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3(4) or 4 of the Act was made out against Nissan.