CCI

Subscribe to CCI

Introduction

2022 was an eventful year for competition law in India. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) operated optimally approving combinations notified before it in reasonable timelines, conducting significant dawn raids, passing notable orders that made international headlines, and conducting market studies. The anticipated amendments to the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) were discussed ad nauseum in conference rooms and across coffee tables. Notable also is that the CCI has not had quorum for the formal conduct of business since Chairperson, Mr. Ashok Gupta demitted office on 24 October 2022, which has resulted in deals worth billions stuck without clearance.…

Continue Reading What’s Happening? 2022 Wrap of Competition Law in India

Competition Law

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) has extended the suspension of the 30-day deadline for merger filings

India’s competition regime is mandatory and suspensory. A transaction cannot be completed (in whole or in part) unless the Indian competition regulator grants its approval.…

Continue Reading Update on Indian Merger Control Regime: The Small Target Exemption and pitfalls around jurisdictional thresholds for merger filings before the CCI

Penalty for penalty - CCI penalises Maruti Suzuki for indulging in resale price maintenance
In an order published on August 23, 2021, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) penalised Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) to the tune of INR 2 billion (approx. USD 27 million) for restricting and controlling the discounts offered by its dealers to the end consumers. Such conduct by India’s leading passenger vehicle manufacturer was held to be anti-competitive resale price maintenance (RPM), and thus violative of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended) (Competition Act).
Continue Reading Penalty for penalty: CCI penalises Maruti Suzuki for indulging in resale price maintenance

sixth amendment to competition law india

In an attempt to further streamline the merger control process, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has for the sixth time[1] since the introduction of the merger control regime in India, amended the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011 (Combination Regulations).

The amendments to the Combination Regulations, notified on 9 October 2018(Amendment Regulations), reiterate the CCI’s constant endeavour to bring greater clarity and transparency to the merger control process.
Continue Reading Sixth Set of Amendments to the Combination Regulations

Panasonic India granted 100% penalty reduction under leniency regime

In a recent order, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has granted Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. (“Panasonic India”) and its office bearers, a 100% penalty reduction under the leniency regime provided by the Competition Act, 2002 (Act).[1] This is the second time Panasonic India has been granted full immunity under the leniency regime in India.…

Continue Reading Panasonic Granted 100% Leniency in Second Batteries Cartel Case

Recently, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) published advocacy material in the form of a competition assessment toolkit intended for policymakers, researchers, analysts, and competition stakeholders; and a diagnostic toolkit for procurement officers. This furthers the CCI’s mandate of taking suitable measures for the promotion of competition advocacy, creating awareness and imparting training about competition issues.
…
Continue Reading CCI Diagnostic Toolkits for Competition Assessment and Procurement Officers in Competitive Tenders

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has, for the sixth time since the introduction of the merger control regime in India, proposed amendments (Proposed Amendments) to the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011 (Combination Regulations).

The Combination Regulations are the principal regulations governing the merger notification process in India.[1] Some of the changes proposed by the CCI seem to be aimed at addressing issues that have arisen in the implementation of the merger control regime over the past couple of years whereas others seek to incorporate procedures that are already being followed by the CCI in practice. The changes, currently in draft form while the CCI seeks stakeholder views , are highlighted in brief below.
Continue Reading CCI Proposes Amendments to Combination Regulations

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), in its order dated 11 July 2018[1], has awarded a 100 per cent reduction in penalty to leniency applicants Globecast India Private Limited (GI) and Globecast Asia Private Limited (GA) (collectively referred to as Globecast), along with their respective responsible office-bearers. It has also awarded a 30 per cent reduction to Essel Shyam Communication Limited (now Planetcast Media Services Limited) (ESCL) along with their responsible officer bearers, in a cartel case in the broadcasting services industry.

This is the latest and the fourth such order of the CCI granting reduction of penalty to applicant(s) under Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) and the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (Leniency Regulations).…

Continue Reading Fourth Order in Less than Two Years: The CCI’s Leniency Regime Gathers Momentum

Can an enterprise agree with its competitors not to hire each other’s employees without violating antitrust laws? Like any other practice of an enterprise, hiring practices may also violate antitrust laws. From an antitrust perspective, enterprises competing against each other to hire or retain employees are competitors in the employment marketplace irrespective of whether they sell the same product or provide the same services. Therefore, any agreement between employers, expressly or implicitly, agreeing not to hire each other’s employees, even if done to reduce costs, may violate antitrust laws.

With increasing protectionist barriers around the globe, companies are rushing to find new opportunities to expand and grow. As a result, competition among companies is unavoidable. This competition is not limited to goods or services offered by these companies and may extend to the hiring of employees, especially in industries where skilled talent is required. Companies have a collective interest to eliminate this competition by forming a no-poaching agreement amongst themselves, which restricts hiring each other’s employees. However, no-poaching agreements may be in violation of antitrust laws as they impose restrictions on employees to pursue other jobs, as well as limiting their remuneration.

The Hong Kong Competition Commission (HKCC) has highlighted this issue by publishing an Advisory Bulletin: ‘Competition concerns regarding certain practices in employment marketplace in relating to hiring and terms and conditions of employment’. Before reporting some of the key findings and recommendations of the HKCC, we map the competition law developments in this area from around the globe.*…

Continue Reading Non-solicitation in the Context of Competition and Labour Laws

* This piece was first published in the January 2018 issue of the Practical Lawyer (2018) PL (Comp. L) Jan 75

With the USD 130 billion merger between global agrochemical giants – Dow Chemicals and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) being granted a green chit by the European Commission (EC) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the significance of innovation in merger assessment has witnessed a renewed focus. The extent and role of innovation in the concerned market is one of the factors that antitrust regulators are required to consider while evaluating a proposed transaction. Ordinarily, this exercise is undertaken to study the impact of the transaction on future innovation and any competitive harm which may result from reduction in the incentives to innovate as also the pro-competitive outcomes emanating from operational synergies which enhance innovation.[1]

In the Dow/DuPont merger,[2] the relevance of innovation was discussed at length by the EC which observed that the merger would not only significantly impede competition in the pesticides and petrochemical industries, at a global level, but would also reduce future innovation in the global pesticides industry. It was noted that the development of effective and environment friendly pesticides required large scale investments and continuous research and development (R&D) and globally, only five players were engaged in R&D in the field of pesticides.[3] The Dow/DuPont merger therefore, would further consolidate market power in an already highly concentrated industry with significant entry barriers and would substantially reduce the parties’ incentives to innovate in the pesticides sector.…

Continue Reading Towards a New Jurisprudence: Role of Innovation in Merger Control