Delhi High Court declines to interfere in CCI probe against Publicis

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the ongoing investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) into alleged anti-competitive conduct involving Publicis Groupe. The court noted that no notice had been issued to the petitioner, TLG India Pvt Ltd, and therefore no cause of action had arisen at this stage.

Senior counsel Ritin Rai, representing TLG India, submitted that the CCI’s prima facie order referred to “Publicis Groupe” without identifying a specific legal entity. He noted that while summons had been issued in the name of “Publicis Groupe,” they were addressed to the office and employees of TLG India Pvt Ltd.

Rai argued that under the Competition Act, investigations must be directed against an identifiable “enterprise” as defined under the statute. According to the petitioner, “Publicis Groupe” is a brand or trade name and not a juristic person under Indian law. The petition sought clarification on the correct entity under investigation and the quashing of summons issued in the name of “Publicis Groupe.”

A bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was hearing the writ petition filed by TLG India Pvt Ltd, the Indian arm of Publicis Groupe, which challenged summons and investigative steps taken in the name of “Publicis Groupe.”

The court asked whether any formal notice had been issued directly to TLG India Pvt Ltd as a legal entity. The petitioner acknowledged that no such notice had been served, though its premises had been searched and its employees had received summons.

Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the CCI, opposed the petition on grounds of maintainability. The regulator submitted that the Competition Act permits investigations against “persons,” a term broad enough to include associations and entities within a corporate group.

The CCI’s affidavit stated that notice had been issued to Publicis Groupe S.A. It added that TLG India Pvt Ltd was not the subject of the investigation and therefore lacked locus to approach the High Court. Any grievance, the regulator argued, could be raised before the Commission in accordance with the applicable procedural framework.

The bench observed that courts are generally reluctant to interfere with ongoing proceedings before statutory authorities. It noted that since no notice had been issued to TLG India Pvt Ltd, no cause of action survived for it at this stage.

The court recorded that if notices were being issued to a non-existent entity described as “Publicis Groupe,” the legal consequences of such action would have to be addressed by the CCI. However, in the absence of a notice to the petitioner company, the writ petition was disposed of, with liberty to the parties to raise appropriate contentions before the Commission.