CCI Orders Probe Into Pernod Ricard’s Alleged Exclusive Dealing Arrangements Under Delhi Excise Policy

May 4, 2026 : The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a detailed investigation into alleged anti-competitive arrangements involving Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and certain wholesalers and retailers operating in Delhi’s Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) market under the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22. The Commission passed the order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act after finding prima facie material suggesting possible exclusive dealing arrangements and brand-pushing practices that may have distorted competition in the Delhi liquor market.

A coram comprising Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad and Deepak Anurag directed the Director General (DG) to complete the investigation within 90 days.

The proceedings arose from information filed by Mr. Mohit, who alleged cartelisation, bid rigging and anti-competitive conduct by several liquor manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in Delhi’s liquor trade. The allegations covered both tenders floated by the Delhi Excise Department for wholesale supply of country liquor and arrangements linked to the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22 governing IMFL distribution and retail operations.

While examining allegations of bid rigging in country liquor tenders issued during 2022-23, the Commission noted that earlier tenders floated in April and May 2022 had been cancelled by the Excise Department due to disclosure of financial bids and concerns over possible bidder pooling. However, after reviewing the available material, the Commission held that there was insufficient evidence at this stage to establish a prima facie case of bid rigging in those tenders.

The Commission also declined to proceed on allegations of horizontal cartelisation among competing liquor manufacturers, including United Spirits Limited, observing that the material placed on record did not sufficiently establish any horizontal agreement or understanding under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act.

However, the Commission found prima facie evidence warranting investigation into the conduct of Pernod Ricard and associated entities under Section 3(4)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. According to the order, Pernod Ricard allegedly entered into concerted arrangements with wholesalers and retailers, including Indo Spirits Private Limited and associated retail entities, to aggressively push its liquor brands and secure larger market share in Delhi.

The Commission referred to an internal email dated July 13, 2021 allegedly circulated among Pernod Ricard employees discussing plans to secure a “strategic advantage” in 20 retail zones in Delhi. The email allegedly mentioned extending financial support through corporate guarantees to selected retail associates bidding for liquor retail licences. The CCI observed that such conduct, if established, could amount to an “exclusive dealing agreement” under the Competition Act because it may induce retailers to prioritise one brand while excluding competing products.

The order further noted allegations that Pernod Ricard proposed financial assistance of nearly Rs.200 crore in the form of corporate guarantees to selected retailers to strengthen retail influence in multiple zones. The Commission observed that such arrangements could distort supply and demand conditions in the IMFL market and potentially restrict consumer choice.

While defining the relevant market, the Commission identified the “market for sale and supply of IMFL in the NCT of Delhi” as the relevant market for the present proceedings, noting that liquor trade in India is heavily regulated at the state level and Delhi’s excise regime created a distinct competitive structure.

The Commission also relied on market share data showing that Pernod Ricard consistently held the highest market share in wines, spirits and liquors in India over several years. It additionally referred to findings in the CAG Report of 2025, which noted that wholesale liquor distribution in Delhi was largely controlled by a few entities, including Indo Spirits and Brindco Sales Private Limited.

The order also took note of allegations that Pernod Ricard issued discriminatory credit notes and rebates to favoured retailers. The information relied on extracts from the Enforcement Directorate’s prosecution complaint alleging that substantial credit notes were granted to certain preferred retailers despite other retailers recording comparable or higher sales volumes without receiving similar benefits.

The Commission further examined allegations concerning relationships between wholesalers and retailers operating under the Excise Policy, including claims that certain wholesalers indirectly exercised retail influence through related entities. It observed that such arrangements increased the risk of exclusive dealing and brand-pushing practices capable of stifling competition.

Accordingly, the CCI directed the DG to investigate the alleged anti-competitive conduct involving Pernod Ricard, Indo Spirits, Pathway HR Solutions, Universal Distributors, Khao Gali, Bubbly Beverages, Shiv Associates and Organomix Ecosystems. At the same time, the Commission removed several other entities from the array of parties after finding the allegations against them unsubstantiated at the prima facie stage.

The Commission clarified that its findings are only preliminary in nature and should not be treated as a final expression on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Mr. Mohit v. Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Case No. 09 of 2024