The Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies (CIABC) has challenged before the Supreme Court a May 20, 2026 NCLAT judgment upholding the Competition Commission of India's finding that Kerala's preferential procurement policy for Jawan Rum — a product of Kerala State Beverages Corporation — did not cause appreciable adverse effect on competition. CIABC argues the state-backed preference distorts the market for private rum manufacturers, raising questions about abuse of dominance and state enterprise exemptions under the Competition Act, 2002.

This case sits at the intersection of competition law and state enterprise privilege — a recurring CLAT PG theme. The Competition Act, 2002 prohibits agreements and dominant-position abuse that cause an 'appreciable adverse effect on competition' (AAEC) in India. The CCI, however, dismissed CIABC's original complaint, finding Kerala's preferential purchase policy for Jawan Rum — manufactured by a state-owned entity — did not meet the AAEC threshold.

The NCLAT affirmed this, and CIABC has now escalated to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether a state-run beverage corporation exercising buyer-side market power through government procurement constitutes 'abuse of dominant position' under Section 4 of the Competition Act, and whether state enterprises enjoy implicit exemptions under Section 54 (Central Government's power to exempt certain enterprises).

For CLAT PG aspirants, the key static anchors are: (1) the AAEC test under Sections 3 and 4; (2) CCI's original jurisdiction and NCLAT's appellate role under Section 53A; (3) the Supreme Court as the second appellate forum under Section 53T; and (4) the 'enterprise' definition under Section 2(h) which includes state-owned entities. The examiner frequently tests procedural hierarchy — CCI → NCLAT → Supreme Court — and the exact threshold language distinguishing anti-competitive effect from mere market preference.