New Filters: Competition Law

If you are not happy with the results, please do another search

Chambers Global Practice Guide | Merger Control 2025

Handshake between business professionals with global network and legal data overlay, symbolizing cross-border mergers and regulatory collaboration.

The Merger Control 2025 guide features close to 40 jurisdictions and provides the latest legal information on enforcement authorities; notification requirements; foreign-to-foreign transactions; joint ventures; third-party rights, confidentiality and cross-border co-operation; appeals and judicial review; FDI and subsidy review; and the authorities’ current competition concerns.

The article was authored by Vaibhav Choukse, Partner; Ela Bali, Partner; Nripi Jolly, Principal Associate & Faiz Siddiqui, Senior Associate, published in Chambers & Partners Global Practice Guide.

Click here to read the full article.

Tags Antitrust India, Chambers and Partners, Competition Law, Cross Border Mergers, FDI Regulation, JSA Law, JSA Thought Leadership, Legal Insights, Merger Control 2025, Mergers and Acquisitions

JSA represents Grasim Industries Limited’s Birla Paints Division before the CCI to secure a Section 26(1) investigation order against Asian Paints Limited for alleged abuse of dominance

Chess pieces arranged on a board at sunset with a king piece in focus, symbolizing strategy and leadership.

JSA represents Grasim Industries Limited’s Birla Paints Division (“Grasim Industries”) before the CCI to secure a Section 26(1) investigation order against Asian Paints Limited (“Asian Paints”)

JSA acted as the sole and lead counsel to Grasim Industries before the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) and successfully obtained a 26(1) order from the CCI on 1 July 2025, directing an investigation into Asian Paints for alleged abuse of dominance.

The team from JSA comprised Nisha Kaur Uberoi, Partner & Chair – Competition Practice, Principal Associate – Sarthak Pande; Senior Associate – Shivangi Chawla; and Associates – Keerthana Kesavan, Mehar Singh Dang and Sudhanshu Singh.

Tags #AbuseOfDominance, #AsianPaints, #CCIIndia, #CompetitionLaw, #CorporateLaw, #GrasimIndustries, #JSATransactions, #LegalAdvisory, #MarketRegulation, #Section26, Antitrust, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates

JSA Newsletter | Competition Law | April And May 2025

Please click here to download the Newsletter as a PDF.

Supreme Court

Effects based analysis a must in abuse of dominance cases

On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) passed a landmark judgment in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Schott India Private Limited and Ors, affirming the necessity of an effects-based analysis in abuse of dominance cases under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended) (“Competition Act”). The SC also addressed emerging competition law issues including volume-based and functional rebates, the efficient competitor test, tie-in arrangements, and margin squeezes. It provided clear guidance, affirming that such practices are not inherently abusive if they are objectively justified.

Background

Schott India Private Limited (“Schott India”) produces 2 (two) types of borosilicate glass tubes i.e., Neutral Glass Clear (“NGC”) and Neutral Glass Amber (“NGA”) tubes, that are used to manufacture pharmaceutical containers such as ampoules and vials. Kapoor Glass Private Limited (“Kapoor Glass”), a converter, was one such manufacturer of pharmaceutical containers and procured borosilicate glass tubing from Schott India.

Schott India offered 2 (two) rebate schemes for converters: (a) volume-based discounts based on aggregated purchases of the NGC and the NGA tubes (“Target Rebate”) where higher discount was given with an increase in the quantity of tubes purchased; and (b) 8% discount to converters that, inter alia, met annual purchase plans and refrained from using Chinese tubes (“Functional Rebate”).

In 2008, Schott AG entered into a joint venture with Kaisha Manufacturers, forming Schott-Kaisha Private Limited (“Schott Kaisha”). Schott Kaisha agreed to source 80% of its requirements from Schott India for a price concession, price freeze for 3 (three) years and priority dispatch during tight supply (“Supply Arrangement”).

In 2010, Kapoor Glass, a competitor of Schott Kaisha, filed a complaint before the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) alleging that Schott India has abused its dominant position by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in the supply borosilicate glass tubes. Kapoor Glass inter alia alleged that:

Target Rebate created loyalty incentives and tied the NGC and the NGA tubes;
Functional Rebate restricted the use of lower-priced Chinese tubes;
Supply Arrangement provided an unmatchable cost advantage to Schott Kaisha; and
Supply Arrangement led to margin-squeeze.

After a detailed investigation, the CCI found Schott India guilty of abusing its dominant position and imposed a penalty of INR 5.6 crore (Indian Rupees five crore sixty-six lakh) (“CCI Order”). Aggrieved, Schott India challenged the CCI Order before the erstwhile Competition Law Appellate Tribunal which set aside the CCI Order and imposed a cost of INR 1 lakh (Indian Rupees one lakh) on Kapoor Glass (“COMPAT Judgment”).

The SC observations

Aggrieved by the COMPAT Judgment, the CCI and Kapoor Glass challenged it before the SC. However, the appeals were dismissed, with the SC holding, inter alia, that:

Target Rebate does not amount to discriminatory or exclusionary pricing: Schott India employed a neutral, volume-based criterion applicable to all purchasers alike. These rebates were applied in slabs and were directly proportional to the quantity of the NGA and the NGC tubes purchased. Schott Kaisha was the only purchaser to qualify for the highest slab, thereby receiving the maximum rebate. The SC also noted that there was no evidence indicating that these slabbed rebates resulted in market foreclosure or restricted access for other suppliers.
Functional Rebate are not unfair: The SC observed that: (i) the purchase-plan ensured furnace efficiency and load stability; (ii) the ‘no-Chinese tubing’ clause, initially based on chemical analysis, was later withdrawn by Schott India; and (iii) the trademark conditions aligned with standard licensing practices. Each requirement was objectively and proportionately justified by legitimate concerns for patient safety and brand integrity. There was no evidence to indicate foreclosure of rivals or suppression of output.
No margin-squeeze: Margin-squeeze occurs when a vertically integrated firm fixes the wholesale input price so high, and its own downstream price so low, that downstream rivals, though equally efficient, cannot earn a viable margin. The 3 (three) conditions to be met for margin-squeeze are: (i) the respondent must itself operate in the downstream market; (ii) the wholesale-to-retail spread must be insufficient for an equally efficient competitor; and (iii) the compression must threaten competitive harm. In the instant case: (i) Schott India was not present in the downstream market i.e., market for sale of pharmaceutical containers; (ii) the wholesale-to-retail spread left rivals with sustainable margins; and (iii) the market exhibited neither exit nor price elevation.
Schott India did not tie the NGA with the NGC tubes: The NGA and the NGC tubes were not independent products and were alternative specifications of the same input. Accepting the justification provided by Schott India, the SC observed that aggregation of the NGA and the NGC tubes smoothened demand and secured continuous load and did not amount to anti-competitive tying.
Effects-based harm is an essential component of abuse of dominance inquiry: The CCI undertook no credible assessment of harm as it inter alia relied on untested statements. Further, there were stable downstream prices, absence of market foreclosure and a lack of Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (“AAEC”). Accordingly, the SC noted that an effects-based analysis is an obligatory component of every abuse of dominance inquiry, which had not been applied in the present case by the CCI.
Denial of cross-examination: Denial of cross-examination to Scott India by the CCI rendered the proceedings procedurally defective. By electing to proceed on untested assertions, the CCI deprived itself of the material needed for a legally sustainable finding and placed Schott India under an evidentiary handicap, contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the SC upheld the COMPAT Judgment and quashed the CCI Order, imposing a cost of INR 5 lakh (Indian Rupees five lakh) on Kapoor Glass for its unsubstantiated nature of allegations and prolonged litigation.

(Source: SC Judgment dated May 13, 2025)

High Court

Kerala High Court affirms CCI’s jurisdiction over competition issues in the broadcasting sector

The Kerala High Court (“KHC”) dismissed the writ petitions filed by Star India Private Limited (“Start India”), Asianet Star Communications Private Limited (“Asianet”), and Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited (together referred to as the “Petitioners”), which challenged the jurisdiction of the CCI. The KHC affirmed the CCI’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of abuse of dominant position against Star India in the broadcasting sector.

Background

On January 31, 2022, Asianet filed a complaint against the Petitioners for abusing their dominant position. Asianet inter alia alleged that Star India offered additional discounts to Kerala Communications Cable Limited, a competitor of Asianet, in violation of the maximum discount limits set by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) regulations. On February 28, 2022, the CCI directed the Director General (“DG”) to investigate the matter (“CCI Order”).

Aggrieved, the Petitioners challenged the CCI Order before the Bombay High Court (“BHC”), which was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Petitioners then approached the KHC, again challenging the CCI’s jurisdiction. They argued that: (a) the complaint before the CCI related to violations of the TRAI regulations; and (b) the TRAI Act, 1997 (“TRAI Act”) governs broadcasting sector including issues of competition. Accordingly, the TRAI Act, being the special law, should prevail over the Competition Act.

The KHC observations

Both the Competition Act and the TRAI Act are specialised legislations, operating in distinct spheres. While some overlap may exist, particularly in the telecom and broadcasting sectors, the TRAI Act does not contain specific provisions to address anti-competitive practices. Therefore, such matters fall within the domain of the CCI.
The CCI has primary jurisdiction to examine allegations of abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, such as those raised against Star India. In contrast, the TRAI’s jurisdiction is confined to matters involving non-compliance with licensing terms or violations of its regulations and tariff orders. Thus, regulatory issues and competition issues fall within separate statutory mandates.

Accordingly, the KHC dismissed the writ petitions.

(Source: Kerala High Court Judgment dated May 28, 2025)

Competition Commission of India

Enforcement

CCI imposes penalty on UFO Moviez India Limited and others for anti-competitive practices

On April 16, 2025, the CCI found UFO Moviez India Limited (“UFO”), its wholly owned subsidiary Scrabble Digital Limited (“Scrabble”), and Qube Cinema Technologies Private Limited (“Qube”) guilty of indulging in anti-competitive practices in violation of Section 3(4) of the Competition Act which deals with vertical restrictions.

Background

UFO and Qube supply Digital Cinema Equipment (“DCE”) to Cinema Theatre Owners (“CTOs”) to enable CTOs to display film content. For this, the film content needs to undergo certain Post-production Processing (“Processing”) services to make it compliant with the DCE.

The complainants^[1] inter alia alleged that UFO and Qube imposed restrictive clauses in the DCE lease agreements with CTOs such that CTOs: (a) could obtain content only from UFO (through Scrabble) and Qube, thereby imposing tie-in arrangements; (b) were prevented from approaching other Processing service providers thereby imposing exclusive supply agreements; and (c) could not play film content on the DCE which were processed by other Processing service providers thereby indulging in refusal to deal. Basis the allegations and evidence provided, the CCI directed the DG to investigate the alleged conduct (“Prima Facie Order”). Summary of the Prima Facie Order is available at JSA Competition Law Newsletter (September 2021).

The DG examined the conduct of the opposite parties in the markets for the: (a) supply of DCE on lease/rent to CTOs; and (b) Processing Services (“Processing Market”) and inter alia noted that UFO and Qube enjoy market power in the market for the supply of DCE on lease/rent to CTOs basis: (a) their market shares of 40% and 48% respectively; and (b) other factors such as widespread presence across India, significant presence in multiplexes compared to competitors, vertical integration in other markets, etc. The DG concluded that the opposite parties indulged in tie-in arrangements, exclusive supply and refusal to deal thereby, resulting in AAEC in India, in violation of Section 3(4) of the Competition Act.

The CCI observations

On the relevant markets, the CCI agreed with the DG, however, since the allegation was with respect to the supply of Digital Cinima Initiative (“DCI”)^[2] compliant DCE on lease/rent to CTOs in India (“DCE Market”), the CCI analysed the conduct of the opposite parties in the DCE Market. It also agreed with the DG’s findings on market power and vertical restrictions imposed by opposite parties and inter alia noted as follows:

Tie-in Arrangement: (i) While leasing DCE to CTOs, UFO insists that CTOs must avail Processing services only from its subsidiary i.e., Scrabble resulting in tie-in arrangement leading to promotion of Scrabble’s Processing services business; and (ii) Qube insists on retaining the right to supply processed film content to the CTOs which display the same on the DCE leased from Qube resulted in tie-in arrangement.
Exclusive supply agreement: In the DCE lease agreements, UFO and Qube imposed exclusivity conditions restricting CTOs from procuring film content processed by any other Processing service providers for displaying on the DCE leased from UFO and Qube. This resulted in exclusive supply agreements; and
Refusal to deal: DCE supplied by UFO and Qube technologically precluded film content supplied by any other Processing service provider, forcing CTOs to procure film content processed by UFO (through Scrabble) and Qube only. This results in a refusal to deal in the Processing Market.

The CCI directed the opposite parties not to re-enter lease agreements with CTOs imposing restrictions and modified the existing lease agreements. It also imposed a monetary penalty of INR 1.04 crore (Indian Rupees one crore and four lakh) on UFO and Scrabble and Rupees INR 1.66 crore (Indian Rupees one crore and sixty-six lakh) on Qube.

(Source: CCI order dated April 16, 2025)

CCI dismisses complaint filed against Canara Bank Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI received a complaint against Canara Bank Limited (“Canara Bank”) for allegedly abusing its dominant position and entering into anti-competitive agreements, in contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.

Background

The complainant[3] obtained financial assistance from Canara Bank for setting up a 3 (three) mega-watt solar power plant. It inter alia alleged that Canara Bank abused its dominant position by: (i) arbitrarily increasing the interest rate; (ii) retrospectively increasing the interest rate from 11% to 14.45% citing an internal bank error; and (iii) obstructing loan transfer to competing banks by withholding collateral documents.

The CCI observations

The CCI defined the relevant market as the market for the ‘provision of banking and loan services in India’ and held that Canara Bank, with a market share of 5.73%, is not dominant in the said market.

The CCI inter alia noted that: (a) changes in the interest rates were based on contractually agreed upon risk and financial parameters, by the parties; (b) back interest charges stemmed from an internal bank error and constituted a contractual dispute between the parties and was not a competition law concern; and (c) withholding collateral documents until full loan repayment is a standard banking practice.

Accordingly, the CCI rejected the allegations and dismissed the complaint.

(Source: CCI order dated May 19, 2025)

Merger control

CCI imposes penalty on Mudhra group for gun-jumping

On January 3, 2024, Matrix Pharma Private Limited (“Acquirer”), along with Kotak Strategic Situations India Fund II and Kotak Alternate Asset Managers Limited (together referred to as the “Kotak Investors”), filed a notice with the CCI seeking its approval for: (a) the proposed acquisition of 100% shareholding in Tianish Laboratories Private Limited by the Acquirer (referred to as the “Proposed Acquisition”); and (b) subscription of Optionally Convertible Debentures (“OCDs”) of the Acquirer by the Kotak Investors (together referred to as, the “Original Notice”). The CCI approved the transaction in February 2024 (“CCI Approval”).

The Original Notice disclosed that the Acquirer was directly owned and controlled by Mr. Venkata Pranav Reddy Gunupati (“Pranav”) and his wife, Ms. Swati Reddy Gunupati (“Swati”), who together held 99.26% shareholding in the Acquirer.

In April and May, the structure of the Proposed Acquisition undergone changes, as mentioned below:

Kingsman funding: Kingsman Wealth Fund PCC (“Kingsman”) subscribed to compulsorily convertible preference shares (“CCPS”) of Mudhra Lifesciences Private Limited (“Mudhra Lifesciences”) (referred to as the “Kingsman Funding”). The Kingsman Funding was deemed approved under the Green Channel in April 2024 and was deemed approved on the same date.
Acquirer funding: Mudhra Lifesciences and Mudhra Pharmacorp LLP (“Mudhra Pharmacorp”) invested in Mudhra Labs Private Limited (“Mudhra Labs”), which in turn invested in the Acquirer (referred to as the “Acquirer Funding”). The Acquirer Funding was completed in April 2024 and was undertaken to provide the necessary capital to the Acquirer to undertake the Proposed Acquisition.
Pranav investment: Subsequently, Pranav acquired 100% shareholding in Mudhra Lifesciences (“Pranav Investment”). Upon conversion of the CCPS, Pranav and Kingsman will hold 57.25% and 42.75% shareholding, respectively, in Mudhra Lifesciences.
Capital contribution in Mudhra Pharmacorp: The partners of Mudra Pharmacorp i.e., Pranav, Govipuri Infra LLP, and Ms. Sujatha Ravuri, contributed capital to Mudhra Pharmacorp (“Capital Contribution”). Pursuant to the Capital Contribution, Pranav got the right to control and manage the affairs of Mudhra Pharmacorp.
Proposed Kotak funding: Kotak Investors’ subscription to OCDs of Mudra Labs to fund the Proposed Acquisition (“Proposed Kotak Funding”).

The Acquirer Funding, Pranav Investment, and Capital Contribution are collectively referred to as the “Transactions”.

Amended notice

On April 23, 2024, the parties filed a fresh notice seeking the CCI approval for the Proposed Acquisition, Proposed Kotak Funding, Kingsman Funding, and the Acquirer Funding (“Amended Notice”), which was approved on May 28, 2024. However, prior to filing the same, the Transactions had already been consummated. Accordingly, the CCI issued a show-cause notice to the parties.

The CCI observations

The CCI inter alia noted as follows:

Material structural changes: Initially, the Acquirer was directly owned and controlled by Pranav and Swati. Pursuant to the Transactions, Swati ceased to be a shareholder, and additional entities—including Kingsman, Govipuri Infra LLP, and Ms. Sujatha Ravuri—acquired indirect ownership interests in the Acquirer, although Pranav continued to be a person exercising control. These changes were not captured in the Original Notice.
Single notice requirement: Since all the steps of the transaction were inter-connected, a single notice ought to have been filed covering all the steps i.e., the Transactions, Kingsman Funding, Proposed Kotak Funding, and Proposed Acquisition.
The Kingsman Funding was implemented only after obtaining the CCI approval and was therefore not found to violate gun-jumping provisions. The Proposed Kotak Funding was never implemented, remaining pending the CCI approval, and the Kotak Investors had no visibility into the completion of the Acquirer or Kingsman Fundings. As such, they were also not found to be in violation of gun-jumping.

After considering the mitigating factors, the CCI imposed a nominal penalty of INR 5 lakh (Indian Rupees five lakh) on Pranav, Govipuri Infra LLP, Ms. Sujatha Ravuri, Mudhra Lifesciences and Mudhra Pharmacorp, collectively.

(Source: CCI order dated March 7, 2025)

CCI approves 21 (twenty-one) combinations in April and May 2025 including:

Acquisition of shareholding of Haldiram Snacks Food Private Limited by Jongsong Investments Pte. Ltd (Temasek).
Acquisition of shareholding of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and Bajaj Allianz Financial Distributors Limited by Baja Finserv Limited, Bajaj Holdings & Investment Limited and Jamnalal Sons Private Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Batlivala & Karani Securities Private Limited and Batlivala & Karani Finserv Private Limited by 360 One WAM Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of EPL Limited by Indorama Netherlands B.V.
Acquisition of shareholding of HealthCare Global Enterprises Limited by KKR.
Acquisition of certain business of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverage Private Limited by Kandhari Global Beverages Private Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Limited and Bharti Life Ventures Private Limited by 360 ONE Private Equity Fund.
Acquisition of shareholding of API Holdings Limited by 360 ONE Private Equity Fund and Claypond Capital Partners Private Limited.
Merger of Quality Care India Limited into Aster DM Healthcare Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Shriram Asset Management Company Limited by Sanlam Engineering Market (Mauritius) Limited.

Acquisition of shareholding of SmartShift Logistics Solution Private Limited by Wellington Hadley Harbor AIV II Master Investors (Cayman) III, Ltd under green channel.

(Source: CCI website)

This Newsletter has been prepared by:

Vaibhav Choukse
Partner

Ela Bali
Partner

Nripi Jolly
Principal Associate

Faiz Siddiqui
Senior Associate

Arundhati Rajput
Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] The complainants are: (a) PF Digital Media Services Limited, which is engaged in post-production processing of films. It converts cinematograph films from their traditional format to digital format. It’s a subsidiary of Prime Focus Limited; and (b) Mr. Ravinder Walia, producer of films.

[2] It is an association of all major film producers.

[3] The complainant is M/s KSD Zonne Energie LLP, which, is engaged in manufacturing electricity, gas, steam, air conditioning supply and electric power generation using solar energy.

Tags Abuse Of Dominance, Antitrust, Broadcasting Regulation, CCI Decisions, Competition Law, Gun Jumping, Kerala High Court, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Mergers and Acquisitions, Supreme Court

JSA Prism | Competition & Data Privacy | June 2025

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Competition Commission of India holds that the other parallel data privacy regulations do not curtail its power over competition law related issues in data driven digital industries

The Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) order against Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) and WhatsApp LLC[1] (“WhatsApp”) assumes significance as it throws light on how the data-related practices of the digital platforms including treatment of privacy rights will be viewed from the competition law perspective in India. This order represents the continuous evolving nature of competition law jurisprudence in the digital space, particularly in the data driven economy. From a data privacy perspective, this order reinforces the growing trend among regulators, both in India and globally, of treating data collection, user autonomy, and consent mechanisms as central not only to privacy regulation but also to digital competition.

Brief facts

Based on certain media reports and information(s) filed before the CCI, the CCI formed a prima facie view and directed the office of the Director General (“DG”) to investigate into WhatsApp’s 2021 policy which made it mandatory for the users to accept the terms and conditions in order to retain their WhatsApp account information and allowed sharing of personalised user information with Meta group companies and third parties (“WhatsApp 2021 Policy”).
Based on its investigation, the DG in its report, delineated 2 (two) relevant markets, as set out below:
- markets for Over-The-Top (“OTT”) messaging apps through smartphones in India; and
- market for online display advertising in India.
The DG found that Meta operating through WhatsApp and Messenger hold a dominant position in the market for OTT messaging apps through smartphones in India. According to the DG, Meta (through WhatsApp) contravened Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended) (“Competition Act”), in relation to the 2 (two) relevant markets delineated above.
After hearing the parties, on November 18, 2024, the CCI endorsed the markets delineated by the DG and held that the WhatsApp 2021 Policy mandating users to accept its privacy policy and terms of service amount to abuse of dominant position in both the relevant markets (“Meta Order”).
Accordingly, the CCI imposed a penalty of INR 213.14 crore (Indian Rupees two hundred and thirteen crore fourteen lakh) on Meta and WhatsApp and directed them to implement certain behavioural remedies, including, providing an ‘opt-out’ option to the WhatsApp users in case their data is to be shared for purposes other than for providing WhatsApp related services. Further, WhatsApp was directed to not share user data collected on its platform with other Meta companies or Meta company products for advertising purposes for a period of 5 (five) years from the Meta Order.

Findings of the CCI

CCI’s jurisdiction on data protection and privacy norms

The CCI considered WhatsApp’s preliminary objection arguing that the investigation and the alleged violation of the Competition Act are based on the DG’s conclusion of a breach of data protection and privacy norms, which is outside of the scope of the Competition Act.
The CCI emphasised the need for competition authorities to monitor and address anti-competitive behaviour in data-driven markets stating that data protection and privacy laws are different from competition law. The CCI further highlighted that data protection and privacy laws focus on maintaining transparency and security for individual rights, while competition law addresses the impact of data on market power and preventing dominant firms from exploiting their data advantage to the detriment of competition and consumer welfare. Accordingly, the CCI rejected the maintainability related argument of WhatsApp and sent a clear signal of jurisdiction over privacy issues.
Clearly, while the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) places consent, purpose limitation, and data minimisation at its core, the CCI’s approach reinforces that privacy is not only a matter of individual rights but also a structural condition of fair market conduct.

Market for OTT messaging apps through smartphones in India

Relevant market:
- The CCI observed that the definition of relevant product market implies that products and services should be considered part of the same market only if consumers regard them as direct substitutes and, in this context, different digital services like social media platforms, streaming services, and search engines do not necessarily serve the same consumer needs or provide the same functionality.
- The CCI further observed that the users engage with WhatsApp, Facebook, Netflix, X, etc., for distinct purposes i.e., communication, social interaction, entertainment, micro-blogging, etc. Given that the OTT messaging apps like WhatsApp are primarily designed for smartphones providing seamless and instant messaging capabilities, the CCI held that the said services including that of Zoom, etc. cannot be considered interchangeable or substitutable with OTT messaging apps. Accordingly, the CCI concluded that the device segmentation including defining the market basis smartphones is also required to accurately assess the competitive landscape and Meta’s position in such market.
Alleged dominance: The CCI found Meta group (through WhatsApp) to be dominant in the market for OTT messaging apps through smartphones in India, based on different factors such as Meta’s (including group companies) significant financial resources, Daily Active Users (DAUs), Monthly Active Users (MAUs), direct as well as indirect network effects, dependence of the consumers on WhatsApp as a primary communication tool, strong lock-in effects, absence of countervailing buying power and control over huge data acting as barriers to market entry.

Market for online display advertising in India

Relevant market: The CCI assessed the presence of Meta, focusing on advertising as its primary revenue generation activity. It examined various advertising modes and market dynamics to identify competitive constraints on Meta. The CCI rejected Meta’s argument that offline and online advertising are part of the same relevant market and that search and display advertising are interchangeable. Accordingly, the CCI endorsed the relevant market as the ‘market of online display advertising in India’, as delineated by the DG.
Alleged dominance: Meta argued that the DG did not find Meta to be a dominant player in the alleged ‘market for online display advertising in India’. In this regard, the CCI formed a view that there is no statutory or technical requirement that an enterprise must hold dominance in the market where the denial of market access is alleged. The CCI further observed that particularly in multi-product ecosystems like Meta’s, services are closely integrated in terms of functionality, data and target groups and a dominant firm’s conduct in one market can have exclusionary effects in another related market.

Alleged abuse of dominant position in both the relevant markets

‘Take-it-or-leave-it’ nature of WhatsApp 2021 Policy: The WhatsApp 2021 Policy, according to the DG’s investigation, lacks the ‘opt-out’ option and the users were not voluntarily agreeing to sharing of their personal data. If the users did not wish to accept the new policy, they were directed to visit Help Centre to delete their account. The WhatsApp 2021 Policy was found to be exploitative under the Competition Act where the users were forced to accept conditions that prioritise the company’s commercial interests at the expense of user autonomy and privacy protection (a non-price parameter of competition amongst players, specifically where service offerings are provided at zero monetary cost), thereby amounting to an imposition of unfair practice under Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act.
The CCI’s treatment of the ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ privacy policy broadly aligns with Section 6 of the DPDP Act, which mandates that consent must be free, informed, specific, and unconditional. Any practice that conditions the provision of a core service on excessive/mandatory data sharing could be interpreted as coerced/invalid consent, thus raising red flags under both laws.
Internationally, the European Data Protection Board and national data protection authorities of jurisdictions, such as Germany, have taken a similar position. The German authority’s landmark decision[2] against Meta (Facebook) in 2019 held that the excessive and non-consensual aggregation of user data across services violated both GDPR and competition norms. That ruling, like the CCI’s order, emphasised that dominant platforms must not use their position to force users into consenting to broad data sharing across ecosystems.
Data collection and sharing of data by Meta (through WhatsApp):
- The CCI set out a detailed and granular level of users’ data required by WhatsApp, including the businesses/customers’ related information provided for using WhatsApp Business App. Meta argued that WhatsApp’s 2016 Policy had already disclosed its data collection and sharing practices with Meta, and the WhatsApp 2021 Policy merely seeks to record users’ acknowledgment of these existing terms.
- The CCI observed that such opacity and ambiguity in data policies is inherently unfair to users and raises significant competition concerns. A dominant platform like WhatsApp cannot use such broad terms without providing users with a clear understanding of the true cost of the services in terms of data sharing.
- The CCI noted that data aggregation with companies like Meta serves as both a driver of market power and a barrier to entry, making it difficult for competitors to enter or expand in the market. The cumulative impact of such practices can favour data-rich players, thereby limiting consumer choice and undermining the competitive dynamics of the digital marketplace.
- The WhatsApp 2021 Policy grants WhatsApp the unilateral right to expand data sharing at any point, without giving any choice to users and also affecting their privacy. The ‘privacy right’ is increasingly recognised as a critical non-price parameter of competition. The CCI concluded that such practices of lowering data protection standards by a dominant firm not only weakens the consumer’s position but also have significant exclusionary effects on competition. Accordingly, the same was also found to be in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act.

Notably, the CCI’s concerns regarding ambiguous and opaque data practices mirror the DPDP Act’s principles of transparency and purpose limitation. Under the DPDP Act, personal data must be collected only for specific and lawful purposes, and the data subject must be clearly informed of the purpose. Denial of market access and leveraging by Meta:

in relation to the “market for online display advertising in India”, the CCI observed that by leveraging data collected from various sources, Meta enables advertisers to reach specific consumer segments more efficiently, resulting in more personalised ads and better engagement, ultimately improving the effectiveness of advertising campaigns. In this regard, the CCI also assessed the significant presence of Meta in the display advertising market which reflects the number of times an advertisement has been served to a user, along with analysing the revenue generated by Meta vis-à-vis its competitors in the online display advertisement market in India;
the CCI also noted that Meta’s cross-platform integration of data, such as the WhatsApp 2021 Policy strengthens Meta’s ability to offer more personalised and targeted advertisements and positions Meta is a more attractive partner for advertisers, as it operates a closed ecosystem or ‘walled garden’. As a result, the competitors particularly smaller companies or start-ups may struggle to gain a foothold in the display advertising market, resulting in a denial of market access to market opportunities;
the CCI also held that sharing of WhatsApp users’ data between Meta companies for purposes other than providing WhatsApp services creates an entry barrier for rivals of Meta, violating Section 4(2)(c) of the Competition Act. Additionally, Meta’s leveraging of its dominant position in the OTT messaging apps through smartphones to protect its position in the online supply advertising market was held to be in contravention of Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act; and
in addition to imposing certain behavioural remedies, the CCI also levied a penalty of INR 213.14 crore (Rupees two hundred thirteen crore fourteen lakh) @4% of the average total relevant turnover of WhatsApp and Meta for violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, taking into account mitigating factors.

Interestingly, from a data privacy lens as well, leveraging user data to build closed advertising ecosystems raises serious concerns under the DPDP Act’s principle of data minimisation. If data collected for messaging is repurposed for behavioural advertising across unrelated Meta platforms, such cross-context processing would need a distinct consent mechanism. The DPDP Act requires purpose-specific consent, and blanket or implied consent across services would likely be treated as non-compliance under the DPDP Act.

Observations

The CCI in dynamic digital markets needs to balance regulation with a light touch approach to ensure innovation is not chilled.
The data-driven businesses particularly entities which could be considered dominant in specific markets (including because of the ecosystem of group companies) under the Competition Act need to re-visit their policies to ensure that the consent policies contain all the relevant information/disclosures, sans any opacity and ambiguity in data policies, to enable the users to make informed choices and such entities cannot use the data furnished by users in an unbridled manner including sharing with group companies.
Meta and WhatsApp appealed the Meta Order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) which passed an interim stay order on the CCI’s direction to deposit the penalty, by directing that 50% of the total penalty imposed by the CCI be deposited with the NCLAT.[3] Of the 5 (five) behavioural remedies imposed by the CCI, the NCLAT stayed 1 (one) behavioural remedy pertaining to the prohibition for WhatsApp to share user data collected on its platform with other Meta companies or Meta company products for advertising purposes for a period of 5 (five) years from the date of receipt of the Meta Order.

Conclusion

The CCI has as a market regulator assumed jurisdiction by expressly holding that the introduction of the DPDP Act does not fetter the power of the CCI to exercise its jurisdiction.

This affirmation of concurrent jurisdiction is consistent with global regulatory practice, where authorities such as the European Commission are increasingly cooperating with data protection bodies. Going forward, companies operating in data-driven sectors should recognise that lawful data processing is not only a privacy issue but also a competition issue. Accordingly, businesses should implement governance frameworks that embed privacy-by-design and choice architecture aligned with both the Competition Act and DPDP Act as well as constantly evolving digital competition norms.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Nisha Kaur Uberoi
Partner and Chair, Competition Law

Probir Roy Chowdhury
Partner and Co-Chair, Corporate

Pranav Satyam
Partner

Yajas Setlur
Partner

Kamal Sharma
Senior Associate

Shivani Bhatnagar
Senior Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] Whatsapp LLC vs. Competition Commission of India, Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2021

[2] Case number B6-22/16; The German authority’s decision was upheld by the appellate authority in principle, available here https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2024/10_10_2024_Facebook.html?nn=48888.

[3] Competition Appeal (AT) No(s). 1 and 2 of 2025 (order dated January 23, 2025)

Tags Antitrust India, CCI India, Competition Law, Consent Mechanism, Data Privacy, Digital Economy, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Meta, Privacy Regulation, User Autonomy, Whatsapp

JSA Newsletter | Competition Law | February and March 2025

Please click here to download the Newsletter as a PDF.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upholds the Competition Commission of India decision rejecting complaint against Asian Paints Limited

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) dismissed an appeal filed by Sai Balaji Traders (“Appellant”) challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (“CCI”) decision to reject a complaint against Asian Paints Limited (“Asian Paints”) for alleged anti-competitive practices. This affirms the CCI’s earlier conclusion that there was no prima facie case of anti-competitive conduct by Asian Paints under Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”).

Background

On September 8, 2022, the CCI dismissed separate complaints filed by JSW Paints Private Limited (“JSW Paints”) and the Appellant, a dealer and supplier of Asian Paints. The Appellant inter alia alleged that Asian Paints indulged in anti-competitive activities under Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act by revoking the Appellant’s Critical Retailer (“CR”) status and downgrading it to Colour World (“CW”) status since the Appellant took competing dealership of JSW Paints.

Following these allegations and the evidence presented, the CCI directed the Director General (“DG“) to investigate. The DG concluded that: (a) Asian Paints’ decision to downgrade the retailer status from CR to CW was justified and unrelated to the Appellant’s association with JSW Paints; and (b) the Appellant’s CR status was reinstated after a review of factors such as sales performance, projected sales, and customer outreach. The CCI concurred with the DG’s findings and subsequently closed the case (“CCI Order”).

NCLAT observations

Aggrieved by the CCI Order, the Appellant approached the NCLAT, which upheld the CCI’s decision. In doing so, the NCLAT made several key observations:

the Appellant had not approached the NCLAT with clean hands, having failed to disclose that its CR status had already been restored, thereby resolving its primary grievance;
the Appellant’s offtake from Asian Paints had shown a consistent decline, which led to the downgrade in status; and
other dealers who were simultaneously engaged with JSW Paints did not witness any change in their retailer status, indicating the absence of discriminatory conduct.

Accordingly, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal.

(Source: NCLAT order dated February 19, 2025)

Competition Commission of India

Enforcement

CCI orders investigation against Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI received a complaint against Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (“TASMAC”) for indulging in alleged abuse of dominant position by inter alia restricting market access to various brands of beer in the state of Tamil Nadu, under Section 4 of the Competition Act. TASMAC, a state-owned enterprise, is engaged in distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages in the state of Tamil Nadu.

The complainant inter alia alleged that TASMAC sells only a limited number of beer brands from select breweries undermining the competitiveness of others. This denies other brands the opportunity to sell, as liquor sales in Tamil Nadu are exclusively routed through TASMAC.

The CCI, prima facie, noted that TASMAC is dominant in the ‘market for procurement, marketing, distribution and sale of beer in the state of Tamil Nadu’ being the exclusive seller of beer.

Regarding TASMAC’s conduct, the CCI observed the following:

TASMAC’s website shows it sells beer from only 4 (four) brands, even though 38 (thirty-eight) brands from 6 (six) suppliers are available;
a few brands make up a disproportionately large share of TASMAC’s total beer purchases, while several well-known brands have much smaller shares; and
the combined share of certain breweries in TASMAC’s procurement has grown over the past 3 (three) financial years.

Accordingly, the CCI directed the DG to investigate the alleged conduct of TASMAC.

(Source: CCI order dated March 25, 2025)

CCI dismisses complaint against A&T Europe SpA and others for alleged anti-competitive practices

The CCI received a complaint against M/s A&T Europe SpA (“A&T”)[1], its wholly owned subsidiary M/s Myrtha Pools India Private Limited and Public Works Division Akola, Maharashtra (“PWD”) for alleged anti-competitive practices, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.

In 2024, PWD invited bids for construction of an Olympic standard swimming pool for District Sports Office, Akola (“Tender”). The complainant, one of the bidders, inter alia alleged that A&T and PWD Akola entered into memorandum of understanding (“MoU”) requiring bidders to use only A&T’s technology and materials. This, they alleged, amounted to abuse of dominance and anti-competitive conduct.

The CCI defined the relevant market as the ‘market for procurement of services for construction of swimming pools in India’ and found that PWD was not dominant, as other entities like hotels and clubs also procure such services. Therefore, it rejected the allegation of abuse of dominance.

Regarding anti-competitive conduct, the CCI observed that any company using technology and materials from A&T or similar providers were eligible to participate in the Tender. As a result, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the MoU violated Section 3 of the Competition Act.

Accordingly, the CCI dismissed the complaint.

(Source: CCI Order dated March 21, 2025)

CCI dismisses complaint against Delhi International Airport Limited and others for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI received a complaint against Airports Authority of India (“AAI”)[2], Ministry of Civil Aviation[3], Delhi International Airport Limited (“DIAL”)[4], GMR Airports Limited (“GMR Airports”)[5] and Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide(“Fraport AG”)[6] for alleged abuse of dominant position, under Section 4 of the Competition Act. DIAL is a joint venture among AAI (26%), Fraport AG (10%) and GMR Airports (64%).

The complainants[7] inter alia alleged that GMR Airports has abused its dominant position by selectively awarding contracts for parking and lounge services at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi (“IGI Airport”) to Delhi Airport Parking Services Private Limited and Encalm i.e., entities in which it holds shareholding.

Given that DIAL handles all the operational contracts for IGI Airport and GMR Airports is not involved in the selection and/or execution such contracts, accordingly, the CCI analysed the allegation qua DIAL. The CCI dismissed the case and inter alia noted that: (a) when choosing the service provider, DIAL adopted a competitive bidding process and invited bids from multiple bidders; (b) there was no bar on DIAL to hold shares in a company providing parking and lounge services; and (c) Encalm is an independent third party with no relation with DIAL and allegation regarding Encalm remains unsubstantiated.

Accordingly, the CCI rejected the complaint.

(Source: CCI Order dated March 20, 2025)

CCI dismisses complaint against logistic companies for alleged cartelisation

The CCI received a complaint against Aegis Logistics Limited, Indus Petro Chem Limited, and Sea Lord Containers Limited (together referred to as the “OPs”) for alleged bid rigging cartel in a tender floated by the New Mangalore Port Trust (“NMPT”) under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act. The tender involved long-term leasing of 85,000 (eighty-five thousand) sqm of land for setting up storage facilities at the port.

The complainant inter alia alleged that:

complaints had been filed with the Central Vigilance Officer (“CVO”), Ministry of Shipping, claiming the OPs acted in concert, leading to cancellation of the original tender and the issuance of a fresh one; and
in the reissued tender, the OPs engaged in bid rigging, owing to their common ownership and affiliation to the same business group.

The CCI dismissed the complaint, noting:

NMPT reissued the tender to attract broader participation, not due to the CVO complaint; and
while the OPs are related entities, mere common ownership or business linkages do not prove collusion. In the absence of concrete evidence, such relationships alone are not grounds for investigation.

The CCI reiterated that legally, related entities can submit competing bids if they act independently. Accordingly, the CCI rejected the complaint.

(Source: CCI order dated March 3, 2025)

CCI dismisses complaint against Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI received a complaint against Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited (together referred to as ‘Microsoft’) for indulging in alleged abuse of dominant position, under Section 4 of the Competition Act.

The complainant inter alia alleged that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive practices by:

tying its antivirus software, Microsoft defender, with its Windows Operating System (“OS”);
using its dominance in the OS market to gain an unfair advantage in the antivirus software market; and
mandating antivirus developers to join the Microsoft Virus Initiative (“MVI”) program to distribute their anti-virus software applications via the Microsoft store.

Although the CCI found Microsoft dominant in the market for licensable OS for desktops/laptops in India (“OS Market”), it dismissed the case inter alia noting the following:

users are free to install third-party antivirus software applications via the Microsoft store or internet. Moreover, Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) can also pre-install alternative antivirus software applications, and the inclusion of Microsoft defender does not hinder competition, as the market for desktop/laptop security (antivirus) software for Windows OS in India (“Antivirus Market”) remains dynamic and competitive;
there is no evidence that Microsoft leveraged its dominance in the OS Market to enter the Antivirus Market. In fact, the Antivirus Market remains highly competitive, with no restrictions imposed on users or OEMs by Microsoft; and
participation in the MVI program is optional. Non-members can still distribute their antivirus software applications via the Microsoft Store, subject to quality checks.

Accordingly, the CCI rejected the complaint.

(Source: CCI order dated March 3, 2025)

Merger Control

The CCI approves 25 (twenty-five) combinations in February and March 2025, including:

Acquisition of shareholding of Tata Play Limited by Tata Sons Private Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Uprising Science Private Limited by Hindustan Unilever Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding O2 Power Midco Holdings Pte. Limited and O2 Energy SG Pte. Limited by JSW Neo Energy Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Ayana Renewable Power Private Limited by ONGC NTPC Green Private Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding Raj Petro Specialities Private Limited by Shell Deutschland GmbH and Shell Overseas Investments B.V.
Acquisition of shareholding of Advanta Enterprises Limited by Alpha Wave Ventures II, LP.
Acquisition of pharma solutions and certain products of nourish business of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. by Roquette Frères S.A.
Acquisition of shareholding of PSP Projects Limited by Adani Infra (India) Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited by JSW Energy Limited through JSW Thermal Energy One Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Schott Poonawalla Private Limited by TPG Scion SG Pte Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Orient Cement Limited by Ambuja Cements Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Ace Designers Limited by Kotak Strategic Situations India Fund II and Kotak Alternate Asset Managers Limited under green channel.
Acquisition of residential and light commercial heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business of Johnson Controls International plc (including Johnson Controls-Hitachi Air Conditioning Holding (UK) Limited) by Robert Bosch GmbH under green channel.

(Source: CCI Website)

CCI notifies CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2025

The CCI, vide notification dated February 27, 2025, brought into force the CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2025 (“2025 Regulations”), replacing the CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011 (“2011 Regulations”).

The key changes introduced in the 2025 Regulations are as follows:

Issuance of demand notice simultaneously with order: Under the 2011 Regulations, a demand notice imposing the penalty was issued by the Secretary of the CCI only after the expiry of the period specified in the order imposing the penalty. However, under the 2025 Regulations, such a demand notice must now be issued simultaneously with the said order.
Extension of time to deposit penalty: Under the 2011 Regulations, parties had 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the CCI order to deposit the penalty. The 2025 Regulations have now extended this period to 60 (sixty) days, aligning it with the 60 (sixty) day period allowed for filing an appeal against the CCI order before the NCLAT. This provision ensures that interest does not accrue before the appeal can be filed.
Reduction in rate of interest on penalty: Under the 2011 Regulations, if a party defaulted in paying the penalty amount, it was liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the outstanding amount. The 2025 Regulations have reduced this rate to 1% per month.
Recovery of penalty from legal heirs: The 2025 Regulations now provide that those legal heirs of a deceased person, from whom penalty is due, are liable to pay the penalty to the CCI after the expiry of the recovery period. If the penalty remains unpaid, such legal heirs can be treated as ‘person in default’.
Simultaneous recovery through sale: The 2025 Regulations now provide that if a person or enterprise in default fails to pay the penalty on time as per the recovery certificate, the recovery officer may ‘simultaneously’ proceed to recover the penalty amount through attachment and sale of their property, in accordance with the rules laid down in the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(Source: General Statement and Notification dated February 27, 2025)

This Newsletter has been prepared by:

Vaibhav Choukse
Partner

Ela Bali
Partner

Aditi Khanna
Senior Associate

Arundhati Rajput
Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] It is engaged in the business of making stainless steel pools.

[2] It is engaged in creating, upgrading, maintaining, and managing civil aviation infrastructure in India.

[3] It is engaged in formulation of national policies and programs for development and regulation of civil aviation in India.

[4] It is a joint venture among GMR Airports Limited, AAI and Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide.

[5] It is engaged in designing, constructing and operating airports across the world.

[6] It is engaged in operation of Frankfurt Airport in Frankfurt am Main.

[7] Fights Against Corruption is a non-governmental organization working towards curbing corruption and Contractors Council of India is engaged in provision of construction services at Delhi and Indore airports.

Tags CCI, Competition Law, High Court, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Newsletters

JSA represents Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody”) in successfully obtaining an unconditional approval from the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) in relation to the acquisition of a portion of the assets and business of Anglo Ame

JSA acted as the sole and lead Indian counsel to Peabody (acting through its newly incorporated special purpose vehicles, i.e., Peabody MNG Pty Ltd and Peabody SMC Pty Ltd), in securing an unconditional approval from the CCI in relation to the acquisition of a portion of the assets and business of Anglo and its subsidiaries’ steel-making coal portfolio in Australia (“Proposed Transaction”).

The deal value for the Proposed Transaction was approx. USD 3.775 billion (approx. INR 31,389 crores).

The Proposed Transaction was approved by the CCI on 17 March 2025 in 17 days. It was one of the first deals notified to the CCI solely on account of breaching the deal value threshold which has recently been notified by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

The team from JSA comprised Nisha Kaur Uberoi, Partner & Chair – Competition Practice, with Partner – Pranav Satyam, Principal Associates – Rahat Dhawan and Anand Sree; Senior Associate – Kamal Sharma; and Associates – Naman Katyal and Meghaa G.

The Indian project finance aspects were led by Lead Infrastructure Partner – Vishnu Sudarsan with Partner – Kartikeya G.S., and Associate – Siddhant Thakkar.

Jones Day acted as international legal counsel for Peabody on this deal.

Tags CCI Approval, Competition Law, Cross Border Transactions, Global Mergers, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Mining Sector, Steel Industry

JSA secures unconditional CCI approval for ONGC NTPC Green Private Limited’s landmark acquisition of Ayana Renewable Power

JSA successfully represented ONGC NTPC Green Private Limited (ONGPL) in obtaining unconditional approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for its 100% acquisition of Ayana Renewable Power Private Limited (ARPPL).

ARPPL is a leading renewable energy platform, with an enterprise value of INR 195 billion (USD 2.3 Billion). ONGPL is a 50:50 joint venture between ONGC Green Limited and NTPC Green Limited, the renewable energy verticals of ONGC Limited (ONGC) and NTPC Limited (NTPC).

The CCI granted its unconditional approval on March 11, 2025. This landmark transaction stands as one of the largest deals in India’s renewable energy sector and marks a significant milestone for ONGPL, representing its first strategic acquisition since its inception in November 2024.

Our competition team comprised of Partners, Vaibhav Choukse and Ela Bali, Principal Associate, Nripi Jolly, Senior Associate, Aditi Khanna, Associate, Faiz Siddiqui & Junior Associate, Arundhati Rajput.

Media Coverage – BusinessLine.

Tags CCI Approval, Competition Law, Corporate Law, Energy Sector, Green Energy, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Merger and Acquisitions, Renewable Energy, Strategic Acquisition, Sustainability, Transaction Advisory

Understanding Indian Competition Law: Key Insights and Common Missteps

The episode covers key aspects of competition law in India, focusing on the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) approach to mergers and anti-competitive practices. The CCI scrutinizes deals where combined market shares exceed 30-40%, particularly among competitors, but has never blocked a transaction since the merger control regime began in 2011. Indian law generally treats companies and their subsidiaries as a single economic entity, except in bidding markets where group companies must avoid sharing sensitive information. The conversation highlights India’s evolving competition law, drawing from mature jurisdictions while tailoring rules for the local market. Foreign investors are typically well-informed about Indian competition laws, aligning with approval processes and rules. The evolving legal landscape is seen as an exciting time for competition law practitioners in India.

Please click here to listen to the full podcast authored by our partner – Vaibhav Choukse, which was published in Conventus Law.

Tags CCI, Competition Law, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Expert, Podcast

JSA represents Nippon Steel Corporation and JFE Steel Corporation in successfully obtaining an unconditional approval from the CCI in relation to acquisition of interest in the Blackwater coal mine based in Australia (“BW Coal Mine”)

JSA acted as the sole and lead Indian counsel to Nippon Steel Corporation (“Nippon Steel”) (including its newly incorporated special purpose vehicle NS Blackwater Pty Limited (“NS Blackwater”) (collectively “Nippon Entities”)) and JFE Steel Corporation (“JFE Steel”) (including its newly incorporated special purpose vehicle JFE Steel Australia (BW) Pty Ltd. (“JFE Steel BW”) (collectively “JFE Entities”)) in securing an unconditional approval from the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) pertaining to the proposed acquisition of:

20% interest in the BW Coal Mine, along with a coal offtake rights agreement in relation to the coal produced by the BW Coal Mine for the Nippon Entities (“Proposed Nippon Transaction”); and
10% interest in the BW Coal Mine, along with a coal offtake agreement in relation to the coal produced by the BW Coal Mine for the JFE Entities (“Proposed JFE Transaction”).

The Proposed Nippon Transaction and the Proposed JFE Transaction was approved by the CCI on 18 February 2025 in 26 days. It was one of the first deals notified to the CCI solely on account of breaching the deal value threshold which has recently been notified by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

Deal Value: Nippon Steel Corporation – approx. USD 720 million; and JFE Steel Corporation – approx. USD 360 million.

Our transaction team comprised: Lead Partner and Chair, Competition Law – Nisha Kaur Uberoi, Partner – Harshita Parmar, Principal Associate – Rahat Dhawan, Senior Associate – Samriddha Gooptu, and Associates – Akanksha Mathur, Naman Katyal, and Ashmeka K.

Tags Competition Law, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Mining

JSA Newsletter | Competition Law | January 2025 Edition

Please click here to download the Newsletter as a PDF.

Supreme Court

Committee of Creditors cannot approve resolution plan prior to Competition Commission of India’s approval

On January 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the case of Independent Sugar Corporation Limited vs. Girish Sriram Juneja, inter alia ruled that the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) cannot approve the resolution plan involving a combination prior to the Competition Commission of India’s (“CCI”) approval.

Background

In October 2021, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) was initiated against Hindustan National Gas and Industries Limited (“HNG”). An Expression of Interest (“EOI”) was floated in March 2022 by the Resolution Professional (“RP”), which also prescribed a mandatory approval from the CCI.

In April 2022, Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. (“INSCO”) and AGI Greenpac Ltd. (“AGI”) submitted their respective resolution plans for consideration. AGI requested an exemption from the RP on obtaining prior CCI’s approval for the resolution plan. The RP while approving it, required AGI to secure the CCI approval after the CoC approval but before submitting the application to the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”).

On September 27, 2022, AGI filed an application before the CCI under Form I (short form), however, the same was invalidated by the CCI on October 22, 2022, with a direction to file a notice in Form II (long form) as the parties’ combined market shares in certain markets exceeded 45–50%.

On October 28, 2022, the CoC approved the resolution plan submitted by AGI. Notably, as of the AGI CoC approval date, AGI neither had the CCI approval nor a pending notice with the CCI, whereas INSCO had already obtained the CCI approval under green channel route.

On November 3, 2022, AGI resubmitted its application to the CCI under Form II, which was conditionally approved by the CCI on March 15, 2023 (“CCI Order”). Summary of the CCI Order is available at JSA Competition Law Newsletter April 2023.

INSCO challenged the CoC’s approval of AGI’s resolution plan before the NCLT, Kolkata, which rejected the challenge, upholding CoC’s decision. INSCO then appealed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), which dismissed the appeal inter alia holding that while the CCI approval is mandatory, obtaining it before the CoC approval is only directory (“September Judgment”). In a separate appeal, INSCO challenged the CCI Order before NCLAT, which upheld the CCI Order (“July Judgement”). Summary of the July Judgement is available at JSA Competition Law Newsletter September 2023.

The SC Observations

Aggrieved, INSCO challenged the September Judgement and the July Judgement before the SC. The SC inter alia held that:

Interpretation of proviso to Section 31(4) of IBC: The NCLAT in the September Judgement concluded that under IBC, though the CCI approval is mandatory, obtaining the CCI approval before the CoC approval is merely directory. The SC rejected NCLAT’s observation and emphasised the plain meaning rule, holding that the legislature deliberately inserted the requirement of ‘prior’ approval to ensure that any anti-competitive concerns are resolved before a resolution plan is approved. The SC also stressed that while the IBC aims to speed up corporate insolvency resolutions, it must still follow legal procedures. They stated that bypassing statutory procedures would undermine the legal system and erode confidence in the regulatory framework. While they recognised that delays are unfortunate, they emphasised that this does not justify disregarding legal requirements.
Anomalous situations and conditional approvals: The Competition Act, 2002 (“Competition Act”) grants CCI the authority to mandate modifications to a combination. Consequently, if the CCI approval is not secured before the CoC approval, there is a possibility that the CCI may require changes to a resolution plan that has already been approved by the CoC. This could compel the CoC to assess a resolution plan without the opportunity to review the modifications directed by the CCI. Additionally, conditional approvals may create uncertainty, necessitate further revisions, and potentially undermine the integrity of the resolution framework.
Procedural lapses under the Competition Act: The Competition Act read with applicable regulations mandate the CCI to issue a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) to the ‘parties’ to the combination in cases where the CCI is of the view that the combination will cause competition concerns. In the present case, the CCI had only issued SCN to AGI and not to HNG. The SC rejected the CCI’s argument that the RP did not object, stating that the CCI had violated statutory requirements. It emphasised that issuing an SCN to the parties is a mandatory procedural step that cannot be bypassed.
Discrepancies in the data submitted to the CCI: The SC noted that INSCO pointed out significant discrepancies in the data AGI and HNG provided to the CCI, which misrepresented key facts and affected competitive analysis. It stated that the NCLAT should have considered these inconsistencies in its July Judgment and that the CCI Order should have been revoked.

Accordingly, the SC directed: (a) AGI’s resolution plan to be quashed as it was obtained prior to the CCI’s approval; (b) any action taken pursuant to the resolution plan be nullified; (c) the rights of all stakeholders were to be restored to their pre-CoC approval status; and (d) the resolution plan of INSCO and others to be reconsidered by the CoC.

(Source: SC Judgement dated January 29, 2025)

Competition Commission of India

Enforcement

The CCI closes case against IREL (India) Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

On October 18, 2022, the CCI ordered an investigation against IREL (India) Limited (“IREL”)[1] for allegedly imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in the supply of Beach Sand Ilmenite (“Ilmenite”), in contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act. Summary of the said order is available at JSA Competition Law Newsletter October 2022.

The complainant[2] inter alia alleged that IREL abused its dominant position by imposing discriminatory conditions and charging unfair prices, for the supply of Ilmenite in the market. Basis the complaint, the CCI directed the Director General (“DG”) to investigate the matter.

After a detailed investigation, the DG concluded that IREL, with a market share of more than 90%, is dominant in the market for mining and supply of Ilmenite in India and has abused its dominant position in the said relevant market by:

Imposition of discriminatory conditions and denial of market access: Ilmenite was not supplied to VV TitaniumPigments Private Limited (“VTPPL”) but continuous supplies were made to Dharangadhara Chemical Works Limited (“DCW”), thereby adopting a discriminatory approach between two customers.
Unfair/excessive prices: The DG undertook a price-cost analysis and noted that IREL raised Ilmenite prices 24 times between April 2015 and March 2022, significantly boosting its profit margin. Since this increase was not linked to production costs, the DG concluded that IREL’s pricing was unfair and excessive.
Discriminatory pricing: The price discrimination between international and domestic consumers was unsubstantiated, and there was no abuse of dominant position to this end.

The CCI Observations:

The CCI agreed with the findings of the DG in relation to the dominance of IREL, however, it disagreed with the DG’s findings regarding the abuse of dominant position and noted that:

there was no refusal to deal/supply by IREL to VTPPL due to lack of evidence;
IREL’s pricing decisions were based on market dynamics, demand-supply balance, alternative procurement options, and buyer-seller bargaining power. A comparison of Ilmenite prices for domestic and foreign consumers, as well as import prices, showed no clear evidence of excessive/unfair pricing; and
the comparison of prices of Ilmenite charged by IREL between international and domestic consumers could not be substantiated and, hence the DG correctly rejected this allegation.

Accordingly, the CCI dismissed the case.

(Source: CCI order dated January 17, 2025)

The CCI dismisses complaint against Bhagyanagar Gas Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI received a complaint against Bhagyanagar Gas Limited (“BGL”)[3] for indulging in alleged abuse of dominant position, in contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act.

The complainant[4] executed a Gas Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) with BGL to purchase 30,000 (thirty thousand) Standard Cubic Meters Per Day (“SCMD”) of natural gas in Hyderabad for its operations. The complainant inter alia alleged that BGL abused its dominant position by: (a) charging an unreasonably high price for supplying natural gas since May 2022 and the same is higher than the price of natural gas supplied in Telangana; (b) not revealing the methodology to arrive at the price of natural gas in contravention of the terms of the Agreement; and (c) refusing to enter into a tripartite agreement with a third party to enable the complainant to purchase natural gas from such third party at a cheaper price and use BGL’s pipelines for supply of the natural gas to its plant for a reasonable transportation price to BGL, in return.

The CCI defined the relevant market as the market for supply of natural gas to consumers having a requirement up to 50,000 (fifty thousand) SCMD of gas in Hyderabad and held BGL to be in a dominant position in the said market for inter alia being the exclusive provider of natural gas in the said region.

On abuse, the CCI inter alia noted that: (a) BGL has not engaged in excessive pricing since the comparison drawn by the complainant was between two separate geographic markets (i.e., Hyderabad and Telangana) characterised by different regulatory conditions; (b) the allegation regarding failing to share the basis of fixation of prices of natural gas is a subject matter of a contractual arrangement between the parties with no competition law concerns; and (c) given that BGL, is not a ‘common carrier’ under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006, it could not enter into a tripartite agreement and this was not a competition law concern.

Accordingly, the CCI rejected the allegations under Section 4 of the Competition Act.

(Source: CCI order dated December 30, 2024)

The CCI dismisses complaint against Coal India Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI received a complaint against Coal India Limited (“CIL”)[5] for indulging in alleged abuse of dominant position, in contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act. The complaint focused on CIL’s new e-auction scheme introduced on December 21, 2022 (“2022 Scheme”), which replaced the 2007 Spot E-Auction Scheme (“2007 Scheme”). The complainant argued that certain provisions of the new scheme were unfair, overly complex, and discriminatory.

The CCI defined the relevant market as the market for the production and sale of non-coking coal to bidders under e-auction scheme in India and found CIL to be in a dominant position. However, after reviewing the clauses of the 2022 Scheme, the CCI found no abuse of dominance, as the provisions largely addressed administrative and operational concerns rather than restricting competition.

The CCI’s findings on key clauses are as follows:

Pending payments: Buyers must clear outstanding payments before their bids are accepted. The CCI deemed this a reasonable and standard business practice.
Bid security: Bidders must provide a non-interest-bearing security deposit. The CCI found this necessary to ensure payment security and prevent defaults.
Auction timing: A minimum of 7 (seven) days must be given between auction notification and the event. The CCI classified this as an administrative matter with no competition concerns.
Bank guarantee: Buyers receiving coal via rail must provide full payment through a bank guarantee, e-transfer, or demand draft. The CCI noted this is a standard safeguard against payment defaults and a similar clause existed in the 2007 Scheme, which was upheld by the CCI in another matter which is currently pending before the SC.
Coal lifting validity: Buyers must lift coal within 45 (forty-five) days of the sale order, with penalties for overloading borne by them. The CCI found this to be an administrative requirement that does not impact competition.
Third-party coal sampling: Buyers cannot reject coal for quality issues but can request third-party sampling. If the quality is higher, buyers bear the cost difference; if lower, sellers cover the adjustment. The CCI found this to be a fair, reciprocal clause.

Accordingly, the CCI dismissed the case.

(Source: CCI order dated 30 December, 2024)

Merger Control

The CCI approves 8 (eight) combinations in January 2025

Combination involving Roop Automotives Limited, CA Carob Investments, UM Holdings, Mohit Oswal and Gaurav Jain.
Combination involving Gentari Renewables and certain special purpose vehicles.
Acquisition of shareholding of Pegatron Technology India Private Limited by Tata Electronics Private Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Manjushree Techopack Limited by Magesty II Pte. Ltd, Ashoka India Equity Investment Trust plc, Nuvama Private Investment Trust, and InCred Growth Partners Fund – I.
Acquisition of shareholding of Del Monte Foods Private Limited by Agro Tech Foods Limited.
Acquisition of shareholding of Ashoka Concessions Limited and Jaora Nayagaon Toll Road Company Private Limited by Ashoka Buildcon Limited.
Combination involving Sequent Scientific Limited and certain other entities.
Acquisition of shareholding of IDT Cementation India Limited by Renew Exim DMCC.

(Source: CCI Website)

The CCI finds Torrent Power Limited guilty of gun-jumping

The CCI found Torrent Power Limited (“TPL”)[6] guilty of consummating the acquisition of 51% shareholding in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (“Target”)[7] without seeking the CCI approval (referred to as the “Transaction”).

Brief background

In February 2022, TPL consummated the Transaction without notifying the CCI. On January 25, 2024, the CCI issued a SCN questioning TPL on why it did not notify the Transaction to the CCI. TPL primarily contended that the CCI does not have jurisdiction as the Transaction is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate commission, i.e., Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (“JERC”) under the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Electricity Act”).

The CCI Observations

The CCI held that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter and JERC cannot be said to have exclusive jurisdiction for the following reasons:

while the Electricity Act governs electricity-related matters, it does not cover all issues within the industry. It aims to promote competition and does not exclude the CCI’s jurisdiction;
although special statutes generally override general ones, and newer special laws prevail over older ones, these principles are not absolute. When statutes appear to conflict, they should be harmonised rather than rendered redundant;
the Electricity Act regulates the electricity sector, whereas the Competition Act promotes competition across all sectors. These statutes are not inherently conflicting, and their jurisdictions can be reconciled through harmonious interpretation; and
the Competition Act empowers the CCI to regulate combinations based on their impact on competition, including in the electricity sector, affirming its authority in this matter.

The CCI found that the relevant financial thresholds were breached, and the Transaction was not eligible for any exemptions, and therefore, should have been notified prior to consummation regardless of it having Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition in India (“AAEC”), in light of the mandatory regime of notifying a combination to the CCI, in India.

The CCI refrained from imposing any monetary penalty due to the presence of several mitigating factors such as: (a) structural issues inherent to the bidding process like TPL’s obligation to comply with the strict bid timelines (failure of which would result in TPL losing its security deposit and right to acquire the Target etc); (b) ambiguity due to overlapping provisions in the two special acts, i.e., Competition Act and Electricity Act; (c) the Transaction not resulting in AAEC in the relevant market; and (d) TPL extending full cooperation in respect of the ongoing proceedings.

(Source: CCI order dated January 14, 2025)

The CCI imposes a penalty on a financial investor for gun-jumping

The CCI found a leading Financial Investor guilty of consummating the subscription of Optionally Convertible Debentures (“OCDs”), equivalent to less than 5% shareholding of Biocon Biologics Limited (“Target”) without obtaining the CCI’s approval (referred to as the “Transaction”).

Pursuant to the Transaction, the Financial Investor was entitled to: (a) certain reserved matter rights[8] (b) information rights including access to minutes of the board, committee, and shareholder meetings (“Minutes Right”), change in shareholdings and latest capitalisation table of Target; and (c) inspection rights including access to premises and personnel of the Target (“Access Right”).

Brief background

On December 9, 2020, the Financial Investor consummated the Transaction without obtaining the CCI’s approval. On February 4, 2022, the CCI issued a SCN questioning the Financial Investor on why it did not notify the Transaction to the CCI.

The Financial Investor argued that the Transaction qualifies for the (erstwhile) item 1 (one) exemption of the CCI (Procedure in regard to the transaction of Business relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011(“Item 1 Exemption”) because:

it was made solely as an investment and in the Ordinary Course of Business (“OCB”) since it acquired less than 10% of the Target’s shares, with no director or observer appointment rights and no involvement in the affairs and management of the Target. The Minutes Rights and Access Rights were standard shareholder rights, available to all investors of the Target. Further, the Transaction is in the OCB as it routinely makes investments in India;
minority investor protection rights do not negate the Item 1 Exemption, as investors require safeguards to protect their investments from value erosion; and
investors need access to Minutes Rights and Access Rights to ensure proper use of funds invested by them. The Financial Investor is bound by confidentiality under the shareholders’ agreement and cannot disclose such information except as required for fulfilling its obligations.

The CCI Observations

The CCI inter alia noted as follows:

the Financial Investor contention that the Minutes Rights and Access Rights are ordinary rights available to all investors, cannot be accepted as the same potentially implies that if any entity grants control conferring rights/strategic rights to a class or classes of investors, the same will be treated as ordinary rights;
one has to consider the nature of rights and not that the rights have been granted to all or a class of investors. Minutes Right and Access Right go beyond the rights available to an ordinary shareholder. Minutes Rights provide access to Target’s strategic and Commercially Sensitive Information (“CSI”) including financial data, strategic plans, business forecasts, proprietary technology and other confidential matters crucial to the competitive advantage and market position of the Target. These rights are not provided to an ordinary shareholder and is indicative that the Financial Investor considered this Transaction as strategic; and
in this case, the acquisition of reserved matter rights, information rights, etc. along with the right to convert the OCDs over a period of 6 (six) years indicate that the Financial Investor did not invest in the Target in the OCB.

Accordingly, the CCI noted that Item 1 Exemption cannot be claimed and imposed a penalty of INR 40,00,000 (Indian Rupees forty lakhs) (USD 46,000 (US Dollar forty-six thousand)) for gun-jumping.

(Source: CCI order dated January 14, 2025)

The CCI conditionally approves acquisition of shareholding of STT Global Data Centres India Private Limited by Ruby Asia Holdings II Pte. Ltd. and Singtel Interactive Pte. Ltd.

The CCI conditionally approved the acquisition of up to 26% shareholding of STT GDC Pte. Ltd. (“STT GDC”) by Ruby Asia Holdings II Pte. Ltd (“Ruby”) and Singtel Interactive Pte. Ltd. (“Singtel”) (referred to as the ‘Proposed Transaction’).

STT GDC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited (“Temasek”), is inter alia engaged in the business of providing data centre colocation services in India. Ruby is owned by the KKR group. Singtel, a subsidiary of Temasek, is inter alia engaged in the business of digital infrastructure and digital businesses including data centre colocation services in India.

Singtel has certain shareholding and rights in Nxtra Data, which competes with STT GDC in India. The CCI raised concerns that Singtel’s common ownership in two major competitors could reduce competition, enable coordination, and lead to the exchange of CSI/in the colocation market.

To address the CCI’s concerns, the parties inter alia proposed the following commitments:

firewalls will be implemented to prevent the sharing of STT GDC’s CSI/confidential information with any Ruby or Singtel personnel involved in competing businesses;
Singtel will not appoint an observer on the board of STT GDC who is either a director, observer employee of other competing portfolio companies;
Singtel would use the CSI/confidential information of STT GDC only for the purposes of monitoring its investments in STT GDC;
any Singtel personnel involved in competing businesses must recuse themselves from STT GDC-related discussions in supervisory bodies, which involve discussions regarding the management or operations of STT GDC group entity;
if both STT GDC and competing Singtel portfolio companies pursue the same business opportunity, Singtel’s board observer at STT GDC must recuse themselves from related discussions and cease receiving relevant information;
Singtel employees will not receive market-facing information of STT GDC but will receive aggregated/anonymised data at the STT GDC group level for Indian operations;
Singtel’s board observer at STT GDC must recuse themselves from discussions on Indian operations to prevent access to sensitive business information; and
the observer appointed by Singtel to the board of STT GDC will not be a Singtel employee.

The CCI accepted the commitments and approved the Proposed Transaction in 113 (one hundred and thirteen) calendar days.

(Source: CCI order dated November 5, 2024)

This Newsletter has been prepared by:

Vaibhav Choukse
Partner

Ela Bali
Partner

Aditi Khanna
Senior Associate

Faiz Siddiqui
Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] It is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, designated as a Mini Ratna, engaged in mining and production of minerals, rare earths and chemicals.

[2] It is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 comprising members engaged in industries relating to beach minerals.

[3] It is engaged in distribution and marketing of natural gas and implementation of city gas distribution projects in states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

[4] It is engaged in the production of various packaging products including glass containers, speciality glass, security caps and closures, etc.

[5] It is a ‘Maharatna’ Public Sector Undertaking under Ministry of Coal, Government of India and is the single largest coal producing company in the world.

[6] It is a public listed company engaged in business of power generation, transmission and distribution.

[7] It is a 100% subsidiary of the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. It has been set up to undertake the business of power distribution and retail supply of electricity in the said Union Territory.

[8] Two categories of reserved matters: (i) rights which would be exercised only with the prior written consent of the investor majority, and (ii) rights requiring the prior written consent of all the investors.

Tags CCI, Competition Law, High Court, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Newsletters

New Filters: Competition Law

Supreme Court

Effects based analysis a must in abuse of dominance cases

High Court

Kerala High Court affirms CCI’s jurisdiction over competition issues in the broadcasting sector

Competition Commission of India

Enforcement

Merger control

CCI imposes penalty on Mudhra group for gun-jumping

CCI approves 21 (twenty-one) combinations in April and May 2025 including:

Competition Commission of India holds that the other parallel data privacy regulations do not curtail its power over competition law related issues in data driven digital industries

Brief facts

Findings of the CCI

Observations

Conclusion

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal upholds the Competition Commission of India decision rejecting complaint against Asian Paints Limited

Competition Commission of India

Enforcement

Merger Control

The CCI approves 25 (twenty-five) combinations in February and March 2025, including:

CCI notifies CCI (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2025

Supreme Court

Committee of Creditors cannot approve resolution plan prior to Competition Commission of India’s approval

Background

The SC Observations

Competition Commission of India

Enforcement

The CCI closes case against IREL (India) Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI dismisses complaint against Bhagyanagar Gas Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

The CCI dismisses complaint against Coal India Limited for alleged abuse of dominant position

Merger Control

The CCI approves 8 (eight) combinations in January 2025

The CCI finds Torrent Power Limited guilty of gun-jumping

Brief background

The CCI Observations

The CCI imposes a penalty on a financial investor for gun-jumping

Brief background

The CCI Observations

The CCI conditionally approves acquisition of shareholding of STT Global Data Centres India Private Limited by Ruby Asia Holdings II Pte. Ltd. and Singtel Interactive Pte. Ltd.

Deals & Matter Corner

Articles & Publications

JSA Live

Blogs

Disclaimer & Confirmation