CCI Rejects Interim Relief Plea by People for Animals Against Poultry Giants, Cites SAIL Judgment Standard
The Competition Commission of India declined interim directions against Venkateshwara Hatcheries and related entities, holding the informant failed to meet the high threshold set by the Supreme Court in the SAIL judgment.
The Competition Commission of India, in an order dated 13 May 2026, rejected an application for interim relief filed by People for Animals (PFA) against eight entities in the Venkateshwara Hatcheries group and their promoter. The Commission, sitting in New Delhi with Chairperson Ravneet Kaur and Members Anil Agrawal, Sweta Kakkad, and Deepak Anura, found that PFA had not satisfied the stringent conditions required for the exercise of power under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002. The underlying information, alleging contraventions of Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act, is already under investigation by the Director General following an order dated 1 April 2026.
The Dispute Before the Commission
PFA filed information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act against Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., Venky's (India) Ltd., Venco Research & Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd., Venkateshwara Research and Breeding Farm Pvt. Ltd., Uttara Foods and Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Uttara Impex Pvt. Ltd., Venkateshwara B.V. Biocorp Pvt. Ltd., Venkateshwara Biofeed Private Limited, and Anuradha Desai.
The allegations centre on conduct said to contravene Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act — provisions dealing with vertical anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position respectively. The Commission had already directed the Director General to commence investigation under Section 26(1) on 1 April 2026.
Separately, PFA moved Interlocutory Application No. 252A of 2025 seeking two specific interim directions. First, that the opposite parties immediately cease collecting mandatory contributions for the National Egg Co-ordination Committee (NECC) from poultry farmers through agreements or otherwise. Second, that the opposite parties stop forcing poultry farmers to deal exclusively in Vencobb and Babcock breeds of broiler chicken and layer hens respectively.
Why the Commission Declined to Act
The Commission identified two independent reasons for rejecting the interim application.
On the NECC contribution issue, the Commission pointed to its own earlier order dated 14 January 2022 in Case No. 09 and 36 of 2017. In that order, the Commission had observed that the collection of Re. 1 per chick from farmers, subsequently transferred to NECC, was not a concern so long as it remained voluntary. The Commission had directed NECC to take up the matter with Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. to ensure payments stayed voluntary and farmers were adequately informed. The Commission noted that the relief now sought by PFA was already covered by that earlier order.
The Commission also noted that Civil Appeal No. 560 of 2023 — filed by PFA challenging the NCLAT judgment dated 8 September 2022 which had confirmed the Commission's order in Case No. 09 and 36 of 2017 — is pending before the Supreme Court.
On the broader question of interim relief under Section 33, the Commission applied the framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 744. That judgment requires the Commission to record satisfaction of a degree higher than the prima facie view formed under Section 26(1). Specifically, the Commission must be satisfied that a contravention has been committed and continues, or is about to be committed; that restraint is necessary; and that there is every likelihood of irreparable and irretrievable damage or a definite apprehension of adverse effect on competition.
The Commission further noted the Supreme Court's direction that this power must be exercised “sparingly and under compelling and exceptional circumstances.”
Interim Reliefs Characterised as Final Relief
A distinct ground for rejection was the Commission's finding that both reliefs sought in IA No. 252A of 2025 were in the nature of final relief. Granting them at this stage, the Commission held, would amount to pre-judging issues that are currently under investigation before the Director General. The Commission found that PFA had not made out a case warranting such far-reaching interim directions when tested against the Section 33 parameters.
The Commission was careful to clarify that nothing in the order amounts to a final expression of opinion on the merits, and that the observations made will not affect the ongoing investigation in any manner.
Order
The Commission rejected the prayer for interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act. IA No. 252A of 2025 stands disposed of. The Secretary has been directed to communicate the order to the Informant and the Director General. The investigation in Case No. 15 of 2025 continues before the Director General.