Karnataka High Court rejects Intel's plea against CCI order

Karnataka High Court rejects Intel's plea against CCI order

The American multinational corporation and technology company was slapped with a penalty of Rs.10 lakh

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Intel Corporation challenging a 2019 order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) calling for an investigation into allegations of abuse of dominant position in the market for micro-processors.

The bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit was dealing with the Intel Technology India Pvt Ltd vs CCI case. It passed the order in favor of CCI and imposed a fine of Rs. 10 lakh on Intel.

The information before the CCI was filed by Matrix Info Systems, a Delhi-based IT trading company engaged in the business of importing, wholesaling, distributing, and supplying a wide range of IT products.

Matrix imports Intel micro-processors from its authorized distributors in other countries and sells them to Indian consumers at highly competitive prices. The issue arose when Intel amended its warranty policy for India, only entertaining warranty requests for Intel boxed micro-processors when they were purchased within the country from its authorized Indian distributor.

Matrix claimed that such separate warranty terms were arbitrary and unfair towards the Indian market and consumers. They limited the choice of customers and affected the business of independent resellers and parallel importers.

The CCI observed that Intel's dominant position in markets of micro-processors for desktops and laptop PCs in India was prima facie established. Therefore, the unfair warranty policy prima facie amounted to an abuse of dominant position in contravention of the Competition Act, 2002.

The Director-General was asked to probe the matter and submit an investigation report within 150 days.

CCI was represented by additional solicitor-general N Venkataraman along with Samvad Partners lawyers Poornima Hatti, Arjun Krishnan, Ankur Singh, Aditya Shankar, Suhaas Shenoy, and A Mahesh Chowdhary.

The petitioners were represented by senior advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sajan Poovayya along with advocate-on-record Naveen GS.