Rinima Borah Agarwal Vs Mrs. India Inc. (Competition Commission of India)
Summary: Smt. Rinima Borah Agarwal filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against Mrs. India Inc., a sole proprietorship firm run by Smt. Mohini Sharma, alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. By order dated 02.06.2026 under Section 26(1), the Commission referred the matter to the Director General for investigation.
Along with the Information, the Informant filed IA No. 178A of 2025 seeking interim relief under Section 33. She sought a stay on specified clauses of the Participant Terms and Conditions dated 23.10.2024 and the Winner’s Terms and Conditions dated 27.10.2024, and an order restraining Mrs. India Inc. from issuing communications restricting or dissuading her from joining or participating in other competitions during the pendency of the matter.
The Commission noted that it had already considered the impugned agreements in its order dated 02.06.2026 and had formed a prima facie view that certain clauses raised concerns, resulting in a direction for investigation which remained pending before the DG. It found that the reliefs sought in IA No. 178A of 2025 were, in substance, in the nature of final reliefs. Granting them while the matter was under investigation would have the effect of pre-judging the issues requiring determination. The Commission therefore held that the interim reliefs were neither appropriate nor warranted at that stage.
Having regard to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744, the Commission found that no case was made out for exercise of its power under Section 33. The prayer for interim relief was rejected and IA No. 178A of 2025 was disposed of.
The Commission also considered IA No. 148 of 2026 dated 14.05.2026, by which the Informant sought an opportunity of hearing. It noted that investigation had already been directed by order dated 02.06.2026. The Commission referred to Regulation 32 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2024, which contemplates an opportunity of hearing to the party against whom an interim order is made. It held that there was no corresponding requirement to afford an Informant an opportunity of hearing before an application seeking interim relief is rejected, particularly when an investigation was already underway. IA No. 148 of 2026 was accordingly disposed of.
The Commission expressly clarified that nothing in the order amounted to a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the observations would not affect the investigation in any manner. The Secretary was directed to communicate the order to the Informant and the DG.
Cases Discussed
- Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744 (SAIL judgment).
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. Information in the present matter has been filed by Smt. Rinima Borah Agarwal (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’), against Mrs. India Inc. (the ‘OP’), a sole proprietorship firm run by Smt. Mohini Sharma, alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
2. The Commission vide order dated 02.06.2026 passed under Section 26(1) of the Act, referred the matter to the Director General (‘DG’) for causing an investigation.
3. The Commission, in its ordinary meeting held today, considered the Interlocutory Application (‘IA’) No. 178A of 2025 filed along with Information, wherein the following interim reliefs have been prayed for by the Informant:
a. Grant a stay on the operation and enforcement of the Clauses xxiii, xxviii, xxix, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xl, xli, l, lxiv and lxxviii of the Participant Terms and Conditions and Clauses xiii, xv, xxvii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxviii, xxxvii and lii of the Winner’s Terms and Conditions, and/or;
b. Restrain the OP from issuing any communication to the Informant restricting or dissuading them from joining or participating in other competitions during the pendency of the present matter, and/or;
c. Pass such further orders as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. The Commission notes that, vide the above-mentioned IA, the Informant has sought an interim stay on the operation and enforcement of the allegedly unfair, restrictive, and discriminatory clauses contained in the Participants’ Terms and Conditions dated 23.10.2024 and the Winners’ Terms and Conditions dated 27.10.2024 (collectively, the ‘Impugned Agreements’). The Informant has further sought an order, restraining the OP from issuing or communicating any direction to the Informant that restricts or dissuades her from joining or participating in other competitions.
5. The Commission considered the Impugned Agreements in its order dated 02.06.2026. Based on the allegations made in the Information, the Commission formed a prima facie view that certain clauses therein raised concerns. Accordingly, the Commission directed an investigation into the matter, which is presently pending before the DG.
6. Upon perusal of the reliefs sought by the Informant in IA No. 178A of 2025, the Commission notes that the reliefs sought therein are, in substance, in the nature of final reliefs. Granting such reliefs at this stage, when the matter is presently under investigation by the DG, would have the effect of pre-judging the issues that arise for determination in the present matter. The Commission is, therefore, of the considered view that granting the interim reliefs sought at this stage would neither be appropriate nor warranted.
7. In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744 (‘SAIL judgment’), the Commission finds that no case is made out for exercise of its power under Section 33 of the Act. Accordingly, the prayer of the Informant seeking interim relief under Section 33 of the Act is rejected. Consequently, IA No. 178A of 2025 stands disposed of.
8. The Commission has also considered IA No. 148 of 2026 dated 14.05.2026 filed by the Informant, seeking an opportunity of hearing. In this regard, the Commission notes that, subsequent to the filing of the said application, the Commission, vide order dated 02.06.2026, has already directed investigation in the matter. Further, Regulation 32 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2024, contemplates an opportunity of hearing to the party against whom an interim order is made. However, there is no corresponding requirement under the said Regulations to afford an opportunity of hearing to an Informant before an application seeking interim relief is rejected, particularly when an investigation into the matter is already underway. Accordingly, no further directions are warranted on the said application, and IA No. 148 of 2026 stands disposed of.
9. It is clarified that nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the observations made herein shall not affect the investigation in any manner, whatsoever.
10. The Secretary is directed to communicate the order to the Informant and the DG, accordingly.
