Back in August this year, the Delhi High Court quashed both the CCI's proceedings and a trial court order that had issued search warrants against JCB.

The High Court made this decision after noting that the informant, Bull Machine—a tractor and tractor attachment manufacturer—had withdrawn its complaint following a settlement with JCB.

The Court also criticized the CCI for continuing its investigation despite the settlement.

The Delhi High Court quashed both the CCI's proceedings and a trial court order that had issued search warrants against JCB. The High Court made this decision after noting that the informant, Bull Machine—a tractor and tractor attachment manufacturer—had withdrawn its complaint following a settlement with JCB.

The Court also criticized the CCI for continuing its investigation despite the settlement.

During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Madhavi Diwan, representing the CCI, argued that the case raised important questions regarding the commission's jurisdiction. She referred to the Excel Crop judgment, stating that the Director General of the CCI had conducted an independent investigation. However, Diwan contended that the High Court's order preventing access to the investigation report hindered the CCI’s ability to proceed.

Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court stated that it could not intervene, as there was no substantial basis to support the CCI’s claims.

"Sorry, we cannot intervene. Nothing is there. How can you say litigation was in bad faith?" the Court said.

While dismissing the appeal, the Bench also clarified that questions of law raised by the CCI remained open.