Competition Commission of India: A complaint was filed by the Air Works India (Engg.) (P) Ltd. (‘Informant’), under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘Act’), alleging abuse of dominant position by GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd. (‘GMR Hyderabad’) and its subsidiary GMR Aero Technic Ltd. (‘subsidiary’), in violation of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act. The four-member Bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Deepak Anurag (Member) upheld the Director General’s (‘DG’) delineation of the relevant markets, identifying the upstream market as access to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and the downstream market as the provision of Line Maintenance Services, and found that GMR Hyderabad held a dominant position in the upstream market. However, the CCI concluded that there was no violation of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), or 4(2)(e) of the Act, as the non-renewal of the license was due to space and operational constraints, not to restrict competition or deny market access. There was no evidence of GMR Hyderabad leveraging its dominance to benefit or give preferential treatment to its subsidiary. Accordingly, no abuse of dominance was established.
Background
The Informant, based in Mumbai, filed a complaint under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act against GMR Hyderabad and its subsidiary alleging violations of Section 4 of the Act. The Informant provided Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul services which includes Line and Base Maintenance Services of aircraft to airlines and general aviation. GMR Hyderabad owned and operated Rajiv Gandhi Airport in Hyderabad. GMR Hyderabad entered into a Joint Sector Agreement with the Ministry of Civil Aviation for Development, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Rajiv Gandhi Airport. Pursuant to the said agreement, GMR Hyderabad became the sole concessionaire of Rajiv Gandhi Airport and had the exclusive right to maintain, manage and operate the airport including to use its discretion in services by third parties at the airport.
The Informant stated that it is one of the third-party service providers of Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul services at Rajiv Gandhi Airport, covering both Line and Base Maintenance Services. The Informant executed a License Agreement dated 20-12-2011 with GMR Hyderabad for three years which was subequently, renewed on 28-11-2014. When the Informant sought further five-year extension on 25-2-2019, GMS Hyderabad refused renewal citing airport expansion and later issued a vacation notice. Despite the Informant’s legal challenges in Telangana High Court, the court dismissed them emphasizing the licensor-licensee relationship and arbitration clause.
The Informant alleged that GMR Hyderabad abused its dominant position in the Line Maintenance Services market at Rajiv Gandhi Airport to benefit its subsidiary and eliminate competition. The Informant accused GMR Hyderabad of violating multiple provisions of Section 4 of the 2002 Act, creating monopoly conditions for its subsidiary, restricting competition by removing the Informant, denying market access by refusing license renewal, and leveraging dominance upstream to eliminate downstream competition. The Informant requested the CCI to investigate and direct license renewal, filing interim applications under Section 33 of the Act.The CCI identified two relevant markets i.e. upstream access to airport facilities at Rajiv Gandhi Airport, dominated by GMR Hyderabad due to exclusive agreements, and downstream services, where GMS Hyderabad’s actions allegedly favoured its subsidiary, despite the Informant holding a larger market share. The CCI found a prima facie case for violations of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act, directing an investigation by the DG.
The DG concluded that GMR Hyderabad’s refusal to renew the informant’s license likely reduced competition. Further, Line Maintenance Services is not regulated under Ground Handling Services Regulations, and denial of airside space equated to denial of market access. The DG cited GMR Hyderabad’s emails encouraging switching to its subsidiary as evidence of abusing dominance to protect its subsidiary. Thus, the DG concluded that GMS Hyderabad abused its dominant position and violated Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The CCI after examining the Information, DG’s Investigation Report, noted that the present matter concerns non-renewal of the Informant’s license for space at airside at Rajiv Gandhi Airport. The CCI stated that the DG had rightly delineated the upstream relevant market as the ‘market for provision of access to airport facilities/premises at Rajiv Gandhi Airport’ and the downstream market as the ‘market for provision of Line Maintenance Service’, with Rajiv Gandhi Airport as the relevant geographic market. GMR Hyderabad was found to be dominant in the upstream market under Section 19(4)(g) of the Act, due to its exclusive rights under the Concessionaire Agreement.
In relation to allegation under Section 4(2)(b) of the Act, the CCI disagreed with the DG’s conclusion. It observed that third-party Line Maintenance Service providers and self-handling airlines existed, and space at the airport was not essential for Line Maintenance Service operations, as the Informant had continued its services even without it. Moreover, GMR Hyderabad’s tender process was not found to be anti-competitive.
Further, the CCI found that GMR Hyderabad’s decision to not renew the Informant’s license was based on space constraints and justified by operational requirements, including the need to prioritize airlines over third-party service providers. The fact that the Informant continued to operate despite the lack of dedicated space further indicated that there was no denial of market access. The CCI found no evidence to suggest that GMS Hyderabad had urged airlines to engage with it subsidiary or had extended preferential treatment to it. It was found that GMR Hyderabad had secured business either through the bidding process or via direct approaches made by airlines. Additionally, the movement of employees between entities was not deemed sufficient to establish leveraging of dominance.
Based on the above findings, the CCI concluded that GMR Hyderabad and its subsidiary had not abused their dominant position, and no contravention of Sections 4(2)(b), 4(2)(c), or 4(2)(e) of the Act, had been established. Accordingly, the CCI directed the matter to be closed.
[Air Works India (Engg.) (P) Ltd. v. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Ltd., Case No. 30 of 2019, decided on 15-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Opposite Parties: Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate; Abdullah Hussain, Kanika Ch. Nayar, Shambhavy Singh, Ishan Handa, Sayan Kumar Panda, Harshil Wason, Advocates; Bhaskar Chandran, Executive Director-Legal & Group General Counsel; Sheetal Sharma, Jr. Manager, Legal; BSS Kakaraparty, CLO; Partha Sarthi, CLO, Legal Head; Sridhar Babu, Vice President GMR.
