Appellate Tribunal Sets Aside CCI Order in Coal Terminal Abuse Case; Remands for Fresh Decision

On 21 January 2026, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside the CCI’s order[1] and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in an appeal arising from allegations that Chettinad International Coal Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (CICTPL), the operator of the common user coal terminal at Kamarajar Port, had abused its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act.

The Appellant, Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association (TNPPA), relied heavily on imported coal routed through nearby ports. Following a Madras High Court order[2] in 2011 banning coal handling at Chennai Port, importers were compelled to shift to CICTPL at Kamarajar Port, the nearest viable alternative. CICTPL increased its coal handling charges from Rs. 180 per metric ton to Rs. 300 per metric ton after the ban, allegedly exploiting its position as the sole common user terminal in the region.

A central issue was delineation of the relevant market. The CCI, in its impugned order, included Krishnapatnam Port (176 km away) within the relevant geographic market and consequently held that CICTPL was not dominant. On appeal by the TNPPA, the NCLAT disagreed with this delineation. It held that economic substitutability, transport costs, plant proximity and hinterland characteristics must guide market definition. Once Krishnapatnam Port was excluded, CICTPL became the sole player in the relevant market and therefore dominant. 

On abuse, evidence showed that during 2011-12 to 2014-15, coal importers were mandatorily required to avail “coordination and liaisoning services” from three entities, Breeze Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (BEPL), Original Innovative Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (OILPL) and Futuristic Handling Services Pvt. Ltd. (FHSPL), allegedly controlled by the Chettinad Group. The CCI acknowledged linkages between these entities and CICTPL, though the CCI ultimately termed the conduct “opportunistic” rather than abusive.

The NCLAT held that once dominance was established, the imposition of mandatory third-party charges and their unilateral and exorbitant increase amounted to abuse under Section 4. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded to the CCI for fresh consideration.

Business Takeaway: The ruling highlights the need for infrastructure operators, particularly those acting as sole or key providers in captive regions, to carefully assess how their commercial decisions may attract scrutiny under competition law. Pricing structures, access conditions, or ancillary charges may raise concerns where customers lack viable alternatives. Companies in such markets should remain vigilant and ensure business teams are sensitised to competition law risks.

[1] NCLAT: Tamil Nadu Power Producers Association v. Competition Commission of India & Ors., Competition Appeal No. 05 of 2025, order dated 21 January 2026.  

[2] Madras High Court: Avoor Muthiah Maistry Street Residents Welfare Association v. Govt. of T.N. 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 678.