CCI Declines to Find Abuse of Dominance in GMR–Air Works Dispute; Clarifies Limits of Competition Intervention in Private Commercial Matters

On 24 September 2025, the CCI closed proceedings against GMR Group entities-GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd (GHIAL) and GMR Aero Technic Ltd (GATL), finding no abuse of dominance despite the DG (its investigative arm) coming to a contrary conclusion. The complainant, Air Works India (Engineering) Pvt Ltd (Air Works), alleged that GHIAL, the sole concessionaire for Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad (RGIA), abused its dominant position in the upstream market for access to airport premises to favour its subsidiary GMR Aero Technic Ltd (GATL) in the downstream market for line maintenance services (LMS). Air Works, an independent maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) service provider providing LMS to airlines at multiple Indian airports including at RGIA, while GATL is GHIAL’s wholly owned MRO subsidiary operating similar services at RGIA.

The DG delineated two relevant markets: (i) the upstream market for access to airport facilities at RGIA, where GHIAL held exclusive control under a government concession; and (ii) the downstream market for LMS. GHIAL was found dominant in the upstream market, and the DG concluded that its refusal to renew Air Works’ licence restricted competition and enabled GATL to gain an unfair advantage downstream. The CCI disagreed, finding GHIAL’s actions commercially justified. It accepted that the space was reclaimed for airport expansion and that similar reallocations affected other operators, including GATL. The CCI noted that Air Works continued to operate using mobile LMS units, and that GATL’s contracts were awarded through competitive bidding, with no evidence of coerced employee movement.

While the parties privately settled their dispute during the pendency of the proceeding and executed a fresh licence agreement in 2023, the CCI declined to terminate the case. It reiterated that competition proceedings are inquisitorial and not extinguished by private settlements. This approach contrasts with the Ericsson–Monsanto and JCB India decisions, where the Delhi High Court treated such settlements as removing the factual basis for CCI proceedings.

Business takeaway: For operators of essential infrastructure- airports, ports, ICDs, SEZs, and logistics hubs, this decision underscores that commercial discretion in space allocation, renewals, or operating rights is defensible when transparently reasoned and consistently applied. Competition law intervention is more likely where such decisions lack objective justification and result in competitive harm in the downstream market.