The document summarizes the development and implementation of merger control regulations in India by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It discusses how there was initial opposition to bringing merger control provisions into force, but that the CCI was finally able to notify final merger regulations in May 2011. It describes some initial amendments made by the CCI in 2012 and 2013 to refine the merger review process based on experience. It also notes that after over two years of implementation, it is an appropriate time to review the CCI's performance in regulating combinations and mergers under Indian competition law.
A detailed perspective of the background, the present functioning and the future possibilities of the merger control regime in India as it unfolds with the passage of time by the architect of merger control in India.
Calibrating the Pulse of Competition Law in Indiaelithomas202
The document discusses emerging trends in India's competition law, based on a survey conducted by EY. Some key points:
- There is a low awareness of competition law among Indian enterprises, with over 80% unaware of the law and its implications. Multi-national corporations are generally more aware and compliant.
- Dawn raids by the investigating authority are expected to increase in the coming year, increasing the need for e-discovery capabilities to examine electronic records.
- Data available for economic analyses in antitrust cases is often unstructured and widespread, hindering effective market analyses.
- Guidelines are needed for determining appropriate penalties, as penalties levied so far have varied without clear reasons. Over 90% of
Merger means combining two or more entities into one, resulting in the merger of all assets and liabilities. Mergers allow for economies of scale, acquisition of new technologies, and market/sector access. Under competition law, mergers that substantially lessen competition by reducing the number of competitors or increasing prices are considered detrimental. The Competition Act defines a "combination" to include mergers and acquisitions, and any combination above a certain asset/turnover threshold must be notified to the Competition Commission of India.
The document summarizes some of the key changes introduced in the Indian Companies Act 2013 as compared to the previous Companies Act 1956. Some of the major changes include:
1) Introduction of new types of companies like One Person Company and dormant companies. The definition of private company was also changed.
2) Mandating consolidated financial statements, appointment of independent directors and internal auditors in certain companies.
3) Streamlining of processes around mergers and acquisitions, corporate social responsibility requirements, and class action suits.
4) Changes in memorandum of association, incorporation process, issue of shares, conduct of meetings and other compliance requirements.
The government of India has, in the past few years, accorded an utmost priority to the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB). The accent is on simplification of regulations and use of technology to make the compliance more efficient for businesses. Apart from the Centre, the States are also being encouraged to implement business reforms in the spirit of competitive federalism, to foster reforms at the sub-national level. The measures are aimed at creating a conducive business environment, which is a key to facilitating growth and creating jobs. Thanks to these measures, India’s EoDB ranking, captured by the World Bank, has improved by 42 spots since 2014 to touch the 100th position now. The Prime Minister envisions India among the top 50 nations in the next couple of years.
While business reforms are being undertaken at a rapid pace and large scale, cutting across Central as well as state levels, it is imperative that awareness about these developments is created among stakeholders and regular feedback is generated to address the gaps in the implementation of reforms. Identification of pending issues and suggesting possible solutions are equally vital. It is also important to identify the best practices within and outside the country, which are considered for implementation by the needy states.
This presentation contains all the details regarding new improvements in Doing Business in India 2018. The data is taken from various news articles and Ease of Doing business 2018 world bank Report. I am ready to send detailed report along with conclusion on Ease of doing business at Attractive price..
Following are the references used in report:
1 World Bank, Doing Business Report 2018, October 2017
2 Doing Business website: http://www.doingbusiness.org
3 live mint, 2017, Matthew Lillehaugen and Milan Vaishnav: Doing business in India: myths and realities
4 Hindustan Times, October 31, 2017, P Suchetana Ray and Asit Ranjan Mishra, India jumps into top 100 in World Bank’s ease of doing business rankings
5 Hindustan Times, 1 Nov, 2017, P Suchetana Ray and Moushumi Das Gupta, Ease of doing business: How India improved its ranking.
The state government of Maharashtra has been at the forefront in creating a conducive business environment that fosters globally competitive firms. Business reforms introduced both by the Central as well as the state government have played a critical role in India’s 30 spots improvement in the Doing Business ranking for 2018.
The State, under the Business Reforms Action Plan (BRAP) 2016, has implemented over 90 per cent reforms in 7 out of 10 parameters, including labour registration, utility connections, single window system, environment registration, among others. These policy reforms have significantly helped in the reduction in time and cost of doing business for the industry, thereby
establishing Maharashtra as one of the top investment destinations in the country.
This report provides the key highlights of the select initiatives on ease of doing reforms in Maharashtra. With a view to provide on-ground impact of these initiatives, the Report also captures industry views on various aspects of business reforms.
Economics presentation (Ease of Doing business in India ppt)Adithya Shettar
The document discusses India's performance in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business rankings. It provides details on how the rankings are calculated based on 10 sub-indices. India has improved its ranking over the years due to various reforms like streamlining construction permits, reducing the time required to get electricity connections, implementing GST to replace multiple taxes, and enacting a new bankruptcy code. The document outlines India's progress on different indicators and highlights further reforms needed to continue improving the business environment and achieve a top 50 ranking.
A detailed perspective of the background, the present functioning and the future possibilities of the merger control regime in India as it unfolds with the passage of time by the architect of merger control in India.
Calibrating the Pulse of Competition Law in Indiaelithomas202
The document discusses emerging trends in India's competition law, based on a survey conducted by EY. Some key points:
- There is a low awareness of competition law among Indian enterprises, with over 80% unaware of the law and its implications. Multi-national corporations are generally more aware and compliant.
- Dawn raids by the investigating authority are expected to increase in the coming year, increasing the need for e-discovery capabilities to examine electronic records.
- Data available for economic analyses in antitrust cases is often unstructured and widespread, hindering effective market analyses.
- Guidelines are needed for determining appropriate penalties, as penalties levied so far have varied without clear reasons. Over 90% of
Merger means combining two or more entities into one, resulting in the merger of all assets and liabilities. Mergers allow for economies of scale, acquisition of new technologies, and market/sector access. Under competition law, mergers that substantially lessen competition by reducing the number of competitors or increasing prices are considered detrimental. The Competition Act defines a "combination" to include mergers and acquisitions, and any combination above a certain asset/turnover threshold must be notified to the Competition Commission of India.
The document summarizes some of the key changes introduced in the Indian Companies Act 2013 as compared to the previous Companies Act 1956. Some of the major changes include:
1) Introduction of new types of companies like One Person Company and dormant companies. The definition of private company was also changed.
2) Mandating consolidated financial statements, appointment of independent directors and internal auditors in certain companies.
3) Streamlining of processes around mergers and acquisitions, corporate social responsibility requirements, and class action suits.
4) Changes in memorandum of association, incorporation process, issue of shares, conduct of meetings and other compliance requirements.
The government of India has, in the past few years, accorded an utmost priority to the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB). The accent is on simplification of regulations and use of technology to make the compliance more efficient for businesses. Apart from the Centre, the States are also being encouraged to implement business reforms in the spirit of competitive federalism, to foster reforms at the sub-national level. The measures are aimed at creating a conducive business environment, which is a key to facilitating growth and creating jobs. Thanks to these measures, India’s EoDB ranking, captured by the World Bank, has improved by 42 spots since 2014 to touch the 100th position now. The Prime Minister envisions India among the top 50 nations in the next couple of years.
While business reforms are being undertaken at a rapid pace and large scale, cutting across Central as well as state levels, it is imperative that awareness about these developments is created among stakeholders and regular feedback is generated to address the gaps in the implementation of reforms. Identification of pending issues and suggesting possible solutions are equally vital. It is also important to identify the best practices within and outside the country, which are considered for implementation by the needy states.
This presentation contains all the details regarding new improvements in Doing Business in India 2018. The data is taken from various news articles and Ease of Doing business 2018 world bank Report. I am ready to send detailed report along with conclusion on Ease of doing business at Attractive price..
Following are the references used in report:
1 World Bank, Doing Business Report 2018, October 2017
2 Doing Business website: http://www.doingbusiness.org
3 live mint, 2017, Matthew Lillehaugen and Milan Vaishnav: Doing business in India: myths and realities
4 Hindustan Times, October 31, 2017, P Suchetana Ray and Asit Ranjan Mishra, India jumps into top 100 in World Bank’s ease of doing business rankings
5 Hindustan Times, 1 Nov, 2017, P Suchetana Ray and Moushumi Das Gupta, Ease of doing business: How India improved its ranking.
The state government of Maharashtra has been at the forefront in creating a conducive business environment that fosters globally competitive firms. Business reforms introduced both by the Central as well as the state government have played a critical role in India’s 30 spots improvement in the Doing Business ranking for 2018.
The State, under the Business Reforms Action Plan (BRAP) 2016, has implemented over 90 per cent reforms in 7 out of 10 parameters, including labour registration, utility connections, single window system, environment registration, among others. These policy reforms have significantly helped in the reduction in time and cost of doing business for the industry, thereby
establishing Maharashtra as one of the top investment destinations in the country.
This report provides the key highlights of the select initiatives on ease of doing reforms in Maharashtra. With a view to provide on-ground impact of these initiatives, the Report also captures industry views on various aspects of business reforms.
Economics presentation (Ease of Doing business in India ppt)Adithya Shettar
The document discusses India's performance in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business rankings. It provides details on how the rankings are calculated based on 10 sub-indices. India has improved its ranking over the years due to various reforms like streamlining construction permits, reducing the time required to get electricity connections, implementing GST to replace multiple taxes, and enacting a new bankruptcy code. The document outlines India's progress on different indicators and highlights further reforms needed to continue improving the business environment and achieve a top 50 ranking.
Companies Act, 2013 - Major changes, Implications and Actions Points on Priva...Prashant Kumar
The document provides an overview of the key changes and implications of the Companies Act 2013. Some of the major changes introduced include allowing one person companies, increasing the limit of members in a private company to 200, mandating corporate social responsibility spending, and increasing governance norms around boards and auditors. The document also summarizes the changes affecting private companies in areas like annual returns, board meetings, financial statements, and auditor appointments. Companies will need to take immediate action to amend their constitutional documents and ensure compliance with the new requirements.
Doing business in india Report- World Bank SurveyAkash Jauhari
This document compares business regulations in India to China and ASEAN countries based on the World Bank's annual Doing Business report. It finds that while India has made improvements in areas like starting a business, trading across borders, and paying taxes, it still lags in other measures like enforcing contracts. The document outlines the parameters assessed by the Doing Business report and provides rankings and comparisons for India and neighboring economies over time. Recommendations are made to further improve the business environment in India through regulatory reforms, increasing efficiency, minimizing corruption, and building political and social consensus around foreign investment.
Japanese companies operating in India face many barriers to doing business, according to a report from the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Some of the key barriers mentioned include inadequate infrastructure, inefficient and opaque bureaucracy, inconsistent policies and regulations, restrictive labor and foreign investment laws, high tariffs, and foreign exchange controls. Addressing these issues would help attract more foreign investment and business to India.
The Companies Act, 2013 has been in force for about a year now. The law while ushering in a new era for corporate regulation in India has introduced massive changes in the way companies govern themselves.
CII has been instrumental in ensuring that industry voices were heeded during each stage of evolution of the Act. Our advocacy still continues with formal submissions on implementation of the legislation which has now thrown up newer issues and challenges. This is being done through various mediums including consolidated CII Representations; closed-door meetings with industry captains; one-to-one meetings with concerned Ministers and other key officials at the MCA.
Based on these submissions and interactions, many concerns highlighted by CII post notification of the Act and Rules have been clarified / notified by MCA. The remaining issues cover provisions relating to onerous requirements for private companies and closely-held unlisted public companies; related party transactions; CSR; amounts treated as deposits; certification of internal financial controls instead of internal control over financial reporting; consolidation of accounts; alignment with SEBI regulations, etc amongst others. These provisions require reconsideration either due to their extended reach or complexity in drafting the regulation or practical difficultly in compliance.
This document discusses India's ranking in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business report. It provides background on what the report measures and how countries are ranked. India's ranking has improved significantly over the past several years, jumping 79 positions from 142nd in 2014 to 63rd in 2020. The document attributes India's improved ranking to various regulatory reforms that have made it easier for businesses to operate. These reforms have reduced the time and procedures required for activities like starting a business, obtaining construction permits, trading across borders, paying taxes, and resolving insolvency. However, the document notes that India still needs to accelerate its reforms to achieve its target of a top 50 ranking.
Companies act-2013-key-highlights-and-analysisMumbaikar Le
The document provides an overview of key changes and concepts introduced in the Companies Act 2013 relating to definitions, company types, roles and responsibilities, financial reporting, auditing, regulators, and other areas. Some of the major changes discussed include the introduction of new entity types like one person companies and small companies, expanded definitions of terms like independent director and promoter, mandatory requirements for consolidated financial statements, auditor rotation and secretarial audit, and provisions relating to corporate social responsibility, class action suits, and insider trading.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is responsible for enforcing competition laws and preventing anti-competitive practices. It was established in 2003 and became fully functional in 2009. The CCI comprises a chairperson and 2-6 members appointed by the central government. Its duties include eliminating anti-competitive practices, promoting competition, protecting consumer interests, and encouraging efficient delivery of goods and services. The CCI has powers to regulate its procedures and seek expert assistance. It establishes benches led by the chairperson or members to handle cases. In a notable case, the CCI imposed a large penalty on the BCCI for unfair practices related to IPL team ownership.
The Competition Commission of India was established through the Competition Act of 2002 and its subsequent amendment in 2007. The Commission is fully operational with a chairperson and six members. It aims to promote fair competition and consumer welfare through enforcement of anti-competitive regulations and by establishing transparent engagement with stakeholders. The Commission seeks to prevent anti-competitive practices, promote competition, protect consumer interests, and ensure freedom of trade in Indian markets.
The document summarizes India's competition laws and the role of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in enforcing these laws. It provides background on the development of competition policy in India and discusses key aspects of the Competition Act of 2002 such as objectives of the CCI, its composition, duties, and penalties for non-compliance. The summary also highlights two case studies where the CCI investigated alleged anti-competitive practices by BCCI and Jet Airways.
The document provides a high-level overview of corporate law reform in South Africa that led to the enactment of the Companies Bill/Act of 2008. The reform aimed to simplify regulations, promote transparency and high standards of corporate governance, and make the law compatible with international best practices. It established principles like flexibility for companies and efficiency of boards. The Act covers topics like types of companies, registration, governance, accounting standards, and establishes new institutions to regulate companies.
ELP Knowledge Series, a quarterly analysis of curated topics pertaining to critical legal and regulatory developments that can create risk for businesses in India.In the last quarter, most notably, the Supreme Court of India has settled the corporate bankruptcy process in India through its landmark decision in the Essar Steel – Arcelor Mittal case. This judgment will definitely impact the non performing assets situation in the country.
11.emergence and applicability of competition act, 2002www.iiste.org call for...Alexander Decker
The document discusses the emergence and applicability of India's Competition Act of 2002. It provides an overview of the key aspects of the Act, which replaced the earlier Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. The Competition Act aims to foster competition and protect Indian markets from anti-competitive business practices. It prohibits anti-competitive agreements between enterprises, abuse of dominant market positions, and regulates mergers and acquisitions. The Act established the Competition Commission of India as the primary regulator and aims to ensure a competitive business environment in India.
Emergence and applicability of competition act, 2002 in india’s new competiti...Alexander Decker
1. The document discusses India's Competition Act of 2002, which aims to establish fair competition in the country's markets amidst increasing globalization and liberalization of India's economy.
2. The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements between companies, abuse of dominant market positions, and regulates mergers and acquisitions to ensure they do not harm competition. It established the Competition Commission of India to enforce the Act.
3. The Act was passed to foster economic development, protect consumer interests, and ensure freedom of trade in India in line with modern competition laws and policies. It replaced the older MRTP Act and came into effect in phases starting in 2009.
India is the seventh largest country by area and second most populous country. Its economy is the seventh largest in the world by nominal GDP and third largest by purchasing power parity. The document discusses ways to improve ease of doing business in India through simplifying compliances, facilitating investments, improving contract enforcement, using technology, and changing mindsets. Key government initiatives to boost employment and entrepreneurship through programs like Startup India, Standup India, Mudra Bank, and Digital India are also summarized. Challenges to business like complex taxation and bureaucratic hurdles are briefly mentioned.
Combination Review in India: Lessons So Far - Part II - KK SharmaKK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
In the immediately preceding issue, the performance of the CCI in the task of
regulations of combinations, as compared to international standards, was discussed
and found to be really impressive for any new competition agency. However, this
experience in regulation of combinations has thrown up interesting lessons in
merger control. In this concluding part, the author, who laid down the basic
analytical and procedural framework for combination review, as the first Head of
Merger Control CCI, in India, takes a look at the lessons from the journey in
merger control so far in India. The comparisons with other jurisdictions throw
up extremely interesting results as seen here in this concluding part.
Combination Review in India: A Mid-year Review (Part I) - K.K. SharmaKK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
In this two-part article, the first part of which appears here, the author, the chief
architect behind the review format of Merger Review in India, takes a look at the
performance of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in handling the
regulations of combinations (merger review) in India and how does it compare
with international standards. The stark contrast between the anxious reactions
before the regulations of combinations came into force and the deafening silence,
even after 19 approvals have been given by the CCI, has also been briefly touched
upon. The next part, to follow, shall deal with the lessons arising from the
journey of merger control in India so far.
Compared to the other enforcement provisions of the Act, the merger control
provisions, or regulation of combinations as these are called in India, are of more
recent origin. The regulations drafted by the Competition Commission of India
(the Commission) for regulation of the combinations, in an attempt to make the
combination regulations more business friendly, have given a window of not filing
the merger filings before the Commission in some cases of combinations where the
possibilities of the Appreciable Adverse Effect on Combination (AAEC) are lesser.
The question arises as to how to deal with the instances where the parties do not file
the details of any combination and the Commission is of the opinion that the
combination either causes or is likely to cause an AAEC in the relevant market.
The author, who was the architect of the introduction of schedule 1 for the
exempt type categories while drafting the combination regulations for India as
the first Head of Merger Control in India and thus making regulation of
combinations a reality in India, delves deep into the issue and looks at the possible
solutions. In his view, the Commission still has freedom to act against any
combination causing AAEC – whether above or below thresholds.
Merger control provisions - A step in the right directionnitinsavara
The document discusses India's evolving competition laws, specifically the introduction of merger control provisions in 2011. It makes the following key points:
1. India's economy has liberalized significantly, requiring the evolution of laws like competition laws to regulate markets. Merger control provisions were introduced in 2011 as part of India's competition law.
2. The merger control provisions are broadly in line with international antitrust laws and provide guidance on assessing transactions for their impact on market competition. Some areas will need further consideration as more deals are reviewed.
3. Over the past 10 months since introduction, the provisions have not faced extensive testing as no major acquisitions have been rejected. However, many filings were for intra-
Manupatra article merger control provisions a step in the right directionShvetaKalra13
The document discusses India's evolving competition laws, specifically the introduction of merger control provisions in 2011. It makes the following key points:
1. India's economy has liberalized significantly, requiring the evolution of laws like competition laws to regulate markets. Merger control provisions were introduced in 2011 as part of India's competition law.
2. The merger control provisions are broadly in line with international antitrust laws and provide guidance on assessing transactions for their impact on market competition. Some areas will need further consideration as more deals are reviewed.
3. Over the past 10 months since introduction, the provisions have not faced extensive testing as no major acquisitions have been rejected. However, many filings were for intra-
this article contains a view of merger control in India by way of analysing the clearances given by the competition agency of India and the time taken in different stages. It looks at all the competition review done by CC I and finds out the average clearance time. This is a two-part article. Part one deals with the performance and the outcome in terms of the quickness of clearance. Second part deals with the lessons learnt after the experience of merger review in India for the first time.
THE REGULATION OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN INDIA.pptxLaibaArshad61
The document discusses the regulation of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in India, including the role of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in assessing anti-competitive effects. It notes that the CCI reviews M&A transactions and can intervene if a transaction has an appreciable adverse effect on competition. The CCI aims to balance competition and economic growth. The document also outlines Indian laws governing M&A, such as the Companies Act, and examines antitrust provisions and challenges in the CCI's review process.
Companies Act, 2013 - Major changes, Implications and Actions Points on Priva...Prashant Kumar
The document provides an overview of the key changes and implications of the Companies Act 2013. Some of the major changes introduced include allowing one person companies, increasing the limit of members in a private company to 200, mandating corporate social responsibility spending, and increasing governance norms around boards and auditors. The document also summarizes the changes affecting private companies in areas like annual returns, board meetings, financial statements, and auditor appointments. Companies will need to take immediate action to amend their constitutional documents and ensure compliance with the new requirements.
Doing business in india Report- World Bank SurveyAkash Jauhari
This document compares business regulations in India to China and ASEAN countries based on the World Bank's annual Doing Business report. It finds that while India has made improvements in areas like starting a business, trading across borders, and paying taxes, it still lags in other measures like enforcing contracts. The document outlines the parameters assessed by the Doing Business report and provides rankings and comparisons for India and neighboring economies over time. Recommendations are made to further improve the business environment in India through regulatory reforms, increasing efficiency, minimizing corruption, and building political and social consensus around foreign investment.
Japanese companies operating in India face many barriers to doing business, according to a report from the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Some of the key barriers mentioned include inadequate infrastructure, inefficient and opaque bureaucracy, inconsistent policies and regulations, restrictive labor and foreign investment laws, high tariffs, and foreign exchange controls. Addressing these issues would help attract more foreign investment and business to India.
The Companies Act, 2013 has been in force for about a year now. The law while ushering in a new era for corporate regulation in India has introduced massive changes in the way companies govern themselves.
CII has been instrumental in ensuring that industry voices were heeded during each stage of evolution of the Act. Our advocacy still continues with formal submissions on implementation of the legislation which has now thrown up newer issues and challenges. This is being done through various mediums including consolidated CII Representations; closed-door meetings with industry captains; one-to-one meetings with concerned Ministers and other key officials at the MCA.
Based on these submissions and interactions, many concerns highlighted by CII post notification of the Act and Rules have been clarified / notified by MCA. The remaining issues cover provisions relating to onerous requirements for private companies and closely-held unlisted public companies; related party transactions; CSR; amounts treated as deposits; certification of internal financial controls instead of internal control over financial reporting; consolidation of accounts; alignment with SEBI regulations, etc amongst others. These provisions require reconsideration either due to their extended reach or complexity in drafting the regulation or practical difficultly in compliance.
This document discusses India's ranking in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business report. It provides background on what the report measures and how countries are ranked. India's ranking has improved significantly over the past several years, jumping 79 positions from 142nd in 2014 to 63rd in 2020. The document attributes India's improved ranking to various regulatory reforms that have made it easier for businesses to operate. These reforms have reduced the time and procedures required for activities like starting a business, obtaining construction permits, trading across borders, paying taxes, and resolving insolvency. However, the document notes that India still needs to accelerate its reforms to achieve its target of a top 50 ranking.
Companies act-2013-key-highlights-and-analysisMumbaikar Le
The document provides an overview of key changes and concepts introduced in the Companies Act 2013 relating to definitions, company types, roles and responsibilities, financial reporting, auditing, regulators, and other areas. Some of the major changes discussed include the introduction of new entity types like one person companies and small companies, expanded definitions of terms like independent director and promoter, mandatory requirements for consolidated financial statements, auditor rotation and secretarial audit, and provisions relating to corporate social responsibility, class action suits, and insider trading.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is responsible for enforcing competition laws and preventing anti-competitive practices. It was established in 2003 and became fully functional in 2009. The CCI comprises a chairperson and 2-6 members appointed by the central government. Its duties include eliminating anti-competitive practices, promoting competition, protecting consumer interests, and encouraging efficient delivery of goods and services. The CCI has powers to regulate its procedures and seek expert assistance. It establishes benches led by the chairperson or members to handle cases. In a notable case, the CCI imposed a large penalty on the BCCI for unfair practices related to IPL team ownership.
The Competition Commission of India was established through the Competition Act of 2002 and its subsequent amendment in 2007. The Commission is fully operational with a chairperson and six members. It aims to promote fair competition and consumer welfare through enforcement of anti-competitive regulations and by establishing transparent engagement with stakeholders. The Commission seeks to prevent anti-competitive practices, promote competition, protect consumer interests, and ensure freedom of trade in Indian markets.
The document summarizes India's competition laws and the role of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in enforcing these laws. It provides background on the development of competition policy in India and discusses key aspects of the Competition Act of 2002 such as objectives of the CCI, its composition, duties, and penalties for non-compliance. The summary also highlights two case studies where the CCI investigated alleged anti-competitive practices by BCCI and Jet Airways.
The document provides a high-level overview of corporate law reform in South Africa that led to the enactment of the Companies Bill/Act of 2008. The reform aimed to simplify regulations, promote transparency and high standards of corporate governance, and make the law compatible with international best practices. It established principles like flexibility for companies and efficiency of boards. The Act covers topics like types of companies, registration, governance, accounting standards, and establishes new institutions to regulate companies.
ELP Knowledge Series, a quarterly analysis of curated topics pertaining to critical legal and regulatory developments that can create risk for businesses in India.In the last quarter, most notably, the Supreme Court of India has settled the corporate bankruptcy process in India through its landmark decision in the Essar Steel – Arcelor Mittal case. This judgment will definitely impact the non performing assets situation in the country.
11.emergence and applicability of competition act, 2002www.iiste.org call for...Alexander Decker
The document discusses the emergence and applicability of India's Competition Act of 2002. It provides an overview of the key aspects of the Act, which replaced the earlier Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. The Competition Act aims to foster competition and protect Indian markets from anti-competitive business practices. It prohibits anti-competitive agreements between enterprises, abuse of dominant market positions, and regulates mergers and acquisitions. The Act established the Competition Commission of India as the primary regulator and aims to ensure a competitive business environment in India.
Emergence and applicability of competition act, 2002 in india’s new competiti...Alexander Decker
1. The document discusses India's Competition Act of 2002, which aims to establish fair competition in the country's markets amidst increasing globalization and liberalization of India's economy.
2. The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements between companies, abuse of dominant market positions, and regulates mergers and acquisitions to ensure they do not harm competition. It established the Competition Commission of India to enforce the Act.
3. The Act was passed to foster economic development, protect consumer interests, and ensure freedom of trade in India in line with modern competition laws and policies. It replaced the older MRTP Act and came into effect in phases starting in 2009.
India is the seventh largest country by area and second most populous country. Its economy is the seventh largest in the world by nominal GDP and third largest by purchasing power parity. The document discusses ways to improve ease of doing business in India through simplifying compliances, facilitating investments, improving contract enforcement, using technology, and changing mindsets. Key government initiatives to boost employment and entrepreneurship through programs like Startup India, Standup India, Mudra Bank, and Digital India are also summarized. Challenges to business like complex taxation and bureaucratic hurdles are briefly mentioned.
Combination Review in India: Lessons So Far - Part II - KK SharmaKK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
In the immediately preceding issue, the performance of the CCI in the task of
regulations of combinations, as compared to international standards, was discussed
and found to be really impressive for any new competition agency. However, this
experience in regulation of combinations has thrown up interesting lessons in
merger control. In this concluding part, the author, who laid down the basic
analytical and procedural framework for combination review, as the first Head of
Merger Control CCI, in India, takes a look at the lessons from the journey in
merger control so far in India. The comparisons with other jurisdictions throw
up extremely interesting results as seen here in this concluding part.
Combination Review in India: A Mid-year Review (Part I) - K.K. SharmaKK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
In this two-part article, the first part of which appears here, the author, the chief
architect behind the review format of Merger Review in India, takes a look at the
performance of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in handling the
regulations of combinations (merger review) in India and how does it compare
with international standards. The stark contrast between the anxious reactions
before the regulations of combinations came into force and the deafening silence,
even after 19 approvals have been given by the CCI, has also been briefly touched
upon. The next part, to follow, shall deal with the lessons arising from the
journey of merger control in India so far.
Compared to the other enforcement provisions of the Act, the merger control
provisions, or regulation of combinations as these are called in India, are of more
recent origin. The regulations drafted by the Competition Commission of India
(the Commission) for regulation of the combinations, in an attempt to make the
combination regulations more business friendly, have given a window of not filing
the merger filings before the Commission in some cases of combinations where the
possibilities of the Appreciable Adverse Effect on Combination (AAEC) are lesser.
The question arises as to how to deal with the instances where the parties do not file
the details of any combination and the Commission is of the opinion that the
combination either causes or is likely to cause an AAEC in the relevant market.
The author, who was the architect of the introduction of schedule 1 for the
exempt type categories while drafting the combination regulations for India as
the first Head of Merger Control in India and thus making regulation of
combinations a reality in India, delves deep into the issue and looks at the possible
solutions. In his view, the Commission still has freedom to act against any
combination causing AAEC – whether above or below thresholds.
Merger control provisions - A step in the right directionnitinsavara
The document discusses India's evolving competition laws, specifically the introduction of merger control provisions in 2011. It makes the following key points:
1. India's economy has liberalized significantly, requiring the evolution of laws like competition laws to regulate markets. Merger control provisions were introduced in 2011 as part of India's competition law.
2. The merger control provisions are broadly in line with international antitrust laws and provide guidance on assessing transactions for their impact on market competition. Some areas will need further consideration as more deals are reviewed.
3. Over the past 10 months since introduction, the provisions have not faced extensive testing as no major acquisitions have been rejected. However, many filings were for intra-
Manupatra article merger control provisions a step in the right directionShvetaKalra13
The document discusses India's evolving competition laws, specifically the introduction of merger control provisions in 2011. It makes the following key points:
1. India's economy has liberalized significantly, requiring the evolution of laws like competition laws to regulate markets. Merger control provisions were introduced in 2011 as part of India's competition law.
2. The merger control provisions are broadly in line with international antitrust laws and provide guidance on assessing transactions for their impact on market competition. Some areas will need further consideration as more deals are reviewed.
3. Over the past 10 months since introduction, the provisions have not faced extensive testing as no major acquisitions have been rejected. However, many filings were for intra-
this article contains a view of merger control in India by way of analysing the clearances given by the competition agency of India and the time taken in different stages. It looks at all the competition review done by CC I and finds out the average clearance time. This is a two-part article. Part one deals with the performance and the outcome in terms of the quickness of clearance. Second part deals with the lessons learnt after the experience of merger review in India for the first time.
THE REGULATION OF MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN INDIA.pptxLaibaArshad61
The document discusses the regulation of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in India, including the role of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in assessing anti-competitive effects. It notes that the CCI reviews M&A transactions and can intervene if a transaction has an appreciable adverse effect on competition. The CCI aims to balance competition and economic growth. The document also outlines Indian laws governing M&A, such as the Companies Act, and examines antitrust provisions and challenges in the CCI's review process.
The document provides an introduction to the Competition Act of 2002 in India. It summarizes that the Act was introduced to replace the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969 by establishing a new competition regulatory authority. The Act aims to prevent anti-competitive practices like anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant positions while regulating combinations/mergers. It also seeks to encourage competition advocacy to promote a culture of competition in India's economic policies and laws.
The document summarizes key aspects of India's competition law framework. It outlines that competition law in India was triggered by the constitution and the first law was the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. This was replaced by the Competition Act of 2002 to promote competition and private enterprise.
The Competition Act established the Competition Commission of India and has four main parts - regulating anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance, combination regulation, and competition advocacy. It aims to facilitate competition, establish the CCI to prevent anti-competitive practices, promote market competition, protect consumer interests, and ensure trade freedom. The CCI has powers like imposing penalties, modifying or blocking combinations, and separating dominant enterprises.
The document provides an overview of the Competition Act of 2002 in India. Some key points:
- The Act aims to promote fair competition in the market and protect consumer interests by prohibiting anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant market positions.
- It established the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to investigate anti-competitive practices and regulate combinations (mergers and acquisitions).
- The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant positions, and combinations that negatively impact competition. It replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969.
- Key concepts defined include cartels, enterprises, persons, relevant markets, and what constitutes anti-competitive agreements and abuse of
India: Prohibition of Anti-Competitive Agreements and Abuse of Dominant PositionKK SHARMA LAW OFFICES
“Unlike the time when recall value of competition was associated only with examinations or sports, the awareness about competition law has come a long way when almost every other day CCI is in the news for reprimanding the erring
market players. Fines for anti-competitive conduct are huge as seen in cases such as that of DLF and cement companies. Having completed a little over four years of active enforcement and nearly ten years of advocacy, CCI has carved a niche for
itself. The author, Mr. K K Sharma, Chairman, KK Sharma Law Offices and former Director General, CCI, having the rare privilege of both drafting and implementing the law as well as being at the cutting edge by way of sculpting the
very first investigations and heading Merger Control and Anti-trust Divisions looks back and sums up the four years of cartel enforcement in India in this article.“
The Competition Act, 2002 aims to promote fair competition in India and protect consumer interests. It replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969. The key objectives of the Competition Act are to prevent anti-competitive practices, promote competition, protect consumer interests, and ensure freedom of trade. The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements between companies, abuse of dominant market position, and regulates combinations/mergers above certain financial thresholds. It established the Competition Commission of India to enforce the competition laws and regulations in the country.
Competition is the best means of ensuring that the ‘Common Man’ or ‘Aam Aadmi’ has access to the broadest range of goods and services at the most competitive prices. With increased competition, producers will have maximum incentive to innovate and specialize. This would result in reduced costs and wider choice to consumers. A fair competition in market is essential to achieve this objective. Our goal is to create and sustain fair competition in the economy that will provide a ‘level playing field’ to the producers and make the markets work for the welfare of the consumers
Rating systems differ around the world, with the US relying on constitutional law, statutes, regulations, and common law, while India has ethical, moral, and contractual laws. Corporate governance aims to ensure companies are accountable to stakeholders and act in their best interests through transparency, fairness, and oversight of finances and leadership. Various regulations like the Companies Act and SEBI guidelines in India govern corporate governance, insolvency and bankruptcy, and the responsibilities of directors and shareholders.
The Competition Act of 2002 established the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote competition. The CCI is tasked with investigating anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant market positions, and mergers and acquisitions. Parties to a combination are not required to notify the CCI, but the CCI can investigate combinations on its own. The CCI faces challenges due to overlapping jurisdictions, unrealistic timelines, lack of cooperation from foreign counterparts, and limited resources and infrastructure.
The document discusses the constitutional basis and evolution of competition law in India. It notes that Articles 38 and 39 of the Indian Constitution mandate promoting social welfare and minimizing economic inequalities, triggering the first competition law in 1969. A committee in 1999 recommended a modern competition law aligned with international standards. This led to the Competition Act of 2002, which aims to promote fair competition while allowing for monopolies in some industries. It prohibits anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant positions while regulating mergers and acquisitions. The Competition Commission of India was established to enforce the Act and advocate for pro-competitive policies.
A detailed perspective of the background, the present functioning and the future possibilities of the merger control regime in India as it unfolds with the passage of time by the architect of merger control in India.
Presentation on The competition act(2002)satya pal
The document summarizes the key aspects of the Competition Act of 2002 in India. It discusses the objectives of eliminating anti-competitive practices and promoting fair competition. The main features covered are the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements such as cartels, abuse of dominant market positions, and regulations governing mergers and acquisitions. Enforcement is carried out by the Competition Commission of India through investigations and imposition of penalties. The act aims to protect consumer welfare and ensure fair competition in the market.
Newsletter on daily professional updates- 09/01/2020CA PRADEEP GOYAL
This daily newsletter provides updates on changes in tax laws, economic policies, and other business regulations from various government departments and regulatory bodies in India. The newsletter covers recent developments related to goods and services tax, direct taxes, insolvency and bankruptcy code, and the economy. It includes notifications, circulars, press releases, case laws, and other news. The goal is to keep professionals informed of changes on a daily basis to help them stay compliant.
This case involves an antitrust complaint filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Honda, Volkswagen, and Fiat alleging anticompetitive practices in restricting the availability of spare parts. The CCI investigation found that the car manufacturers were abusing their dominant position by restricting dealers from selling spare parts in the open market. The CCI imposed a penalty of 2% of total turnover on the car manufacturers for violating competition laws. The car manufacturers appealed the decision. The High Court upheld most of the CCI's findings and order, but declared one section of the Competition Act relating to CCI membership to be unconstitutional.
The Companies Act, 2013 has become the law of the land after being notified on 30 August, 2013. The law, which was in the making for more than a decade, ushers in a new era for corporate regulation in India. It introduces massive changes in the way companies govern themselves, raise money and interact with stakeholders. By laying stress on self-regulation and disclosure with minimal Government intervention, the law lays more responsibility on corporates. With 99 sections out of a total of 470 sections already in force, the legislation is amending the way companies operate and are regulated in the country.
CII has been instrumental in ensuring that industry voices were heeded to during each stage of evolution of the Act. Due to concerted efforts, the current form of the Act is a marked progression over the earlier versions which prescribed more rigorous and stringent provisions. Our advocacy still continues with formal submissions on subordinate legislation that forms part of over 70% provisions of the Act. With the Ministry of Corporate Affairs currently working on finalizing rules with views from stakeholders, CII recommendations to the first batch of draft rules have already been submitted on 10 October, 2013. Building up of industry views is currently underway, based on which detailed inputs would be submitted on the remaining sets of rules as well. Submission of formal representations is also being supplemented with industry interactions with the Minister for Corporate Affairs and others at the helm of affairs at the Ministry.
This issue of Policy Watch focuses on the highlights of the new law while intending to apprise members of challenges that corporate regulation now beholds. The issue is also aimed at updating members of CII views on specific provisions while seeking views on draft rules that amplify the requirements.
Competition Law is in an evolutionary stage in India having completed a little over five years in India. The orders in the initial stage of enforcement have a huge impact on the progress of this law in the country. Here, K K Sharma ex Director General, CCI discusses the 3:2 order of CCI in Jaypee case. In this case by a slender majority of one, the Commission decided not to impose any fine on Jaypee group holding it not to be dominant in the relevant market. The Market definition itself was changed. Earlier DG was asked to investigate according to a particular market definition but when the report of DG was submitted , the majority did not agree and went back to earlier definition in which the group was not dominant. The author who , now, is Chairman, KK Sharma Law Offices discusses in detail this case in this article.
Merger Review process has evolved over a period of time. This is evident from the changing focus on consideration of efficiencies in merger analysis. However, a cross-country comparison shows that as of date consideration of efficiency has become almost an integral part of merger review. The article details this discussion.
While benefiting from the available best practices as compiled and recommended by the international competition network(ICN),India has ensured that the merger control regime adopted by India takes into account the ground economic realities of the country. Inter alia, the detailed factors of determination contain factors for consideration by the CCI which give CCI is enough flexibility to factor in the social realities by ensuring a fair merger review.The presentation analyses this and compares India's merger regime with the merger regime of some comparable countries.
The document provides a historical overview of India's economic policy and regulations regarding competition from the early 1950s to the present. It traces the transition from a command economy with extensive public sector control and regulations to a more liberalized market-oriented economy since 1991. Key reforms have included reducing licensing requirements, opening sectors to private competition, and abolishing price controls. This led to the enactment of the Competition Act of 2002 and establishment of the Competition Commission of India in 2003 to regulate combinations, dominant positions, and anticompetitive agreements. The CCI notifies and reviews mergers and acquisitions based on thresholds and assesses the impact on competition in the relevant market.
The document provides an overview of India's regulation of combinations (mergers and acquisitions) from early stages of planned economic development to the present status under the Competition Act, 2002. It traces the transition from extensive government controls to economic liberalization since 1991. The Competition Commission of India was established in 2003 to prevent anti-competitive practices, promote fair competition, protect consumer interests and ensure freedom of trade. Notifiable combinations above certain asset/turnover thresholds require suspension approval from CCI which assesses the combination based on factors like impact on competition and consumer welfare.
This document provides an overview of competition policy and law in India. It discusses the early stages of India's planned economic development and transition to economic reforms since 1991. This led to the enactment of the Competition Act of 2002 and establishment of the Competition Commission of India in 2003 to prevent anti-competitive practices. The CCI regulates combinations (mergers and acquisitions) by requiring compulsory notification above certain thresholds. Combinations are assessed based on their impact on competition and orders passed for approval or modification. Relevant provisions and procedures related to combination regulation aim to balance effective competition with business certainty.
This document summarizes key aspects of competition law in India related to the regulation of combinations or mergers and acquisitions. It outlines the thresholds and criteria for mandatory pre-notification of combinations, as well as the review process and factors considered in assessing potential anti-competitive effects. It also compares India's regulations with international best practices and jurisdictions. Penalties for non-compliance with the regulatory framework are also summarized.
The document provides an overview of competition policy and law in India. It discusses the evolution of competition law from the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP Act) of 1969 to the enactment of the Competition Act of 2002. Key highlights include:
- The MRTP Act was replaced as it had become obsolete with economic reforms since 1991 that focused on reducing regulations.
- The Competition Act of 2002 established the Competition Commission of India in 2003 to prevent anti-competitive practices, promote fair competition, protect consumer interests and ensure freedom of trade.
- The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position and regulates combinations. It provides the Commission powers to investigate cartels and impose penalties
This document summarizes India's new merger control regime established in 2011. Some key points:
- The Competition Commission of India was established to regulate combinations (mergers and acquisitions) that meet certain asset or turnover thresholds.
- Reviews must be completed within 210 days (180 days for simpler cases), similar to other major jurisdictions like the EU.
- Factors for assessing potential anti-competitive effects are listed. Thresholds were increased by 50% and include both domestic and international transactions.
- The CCI can approve deals, approve with modifications, or not approve. Silence within the review period means approval.
The document provides an overview of the procedures for investigating combinations (mergers and acquisitions) by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It discusses key aspects of the regulatory framework including relevant sections of the Competition Act that establish thresholds and notification requirements for combinations. It also describes CCI's process for reviewing combinations, considering various factors to determine if the combination causes an appreciable adverse effect on competition. The document highlights challenges in enforcing competition laws for combinations and compares CCI's role to predicting outcomes like an astrologer.
The document discusses the interface between sector regulators and the Competition Commission of India (CCI). It notes that while sector regulators focus on technical standards and access in specific industries, the CCI promotes overall competition across sectors. There is potential for disagreements without clear jurisdiction delineation or coordination. However, coordination allows each to play distinct roles, with sector regulators considering competition and CCI overcoming market failures. The document outlines coordination mechanisms like information sharing and referrals between the CCI and sector regulators under various laws. It emphasizes promoting competition, efficiency, and consumer interests in all sectors.
The document summarizes key principles from the International Competition Network (ICN) regarding merger notification regimes. It discusses 9 recommended practices from the ICN, including having clear notification thresholds, reasonable review periods, procedural fairness, transparency, and protecting confidential information. For each practice, it provides India's position based on its new merger notification law, noting areas of alignment like review periods being similar to other jurisdictions, as well as aspects where guidelines will be further developed over time, like procedures for substantive assessment. The document aims to show how India's new regime follows ICN best practices to have an efficient and effective merger review process.
This document provides an overview of competition law and policy in India. It discusses the early stages of India's economic development which involved extensive public sector control and regulations. Economic reforms since 1991 have gradually reduced regulations and opened the economy to market forces. This led to the establishment of the Competition Commission of India in 2003 to administer the Competition Act of 2002. The Act prohibits anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant position, and regulates combinations or mergers above certain thresholds. It aims to prevent anti-competitive practices and promote competition for the benefit of consumers. The Commission has powers to investigate violations, impose penalties, and provide remedies.
This document summarizes the key regulations of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regarding combinations. It discusses Regulations 5-7, 12, 18-22, 24, 26-27, 36, 39, 41, 46, 54-55 which cover notification procedures and timelines for combinations, flexibility in filing notices, fees, additional time provisions, acceptance of belated or revised notices, deemed approvals, expert assistance, opportunities to be heard, modifications to orders, independent trustees to oversee compliance, and confidentiality of information. The regulations aim to facilitate business transactions with no significant competition issues, provide flexibility, and follow international best practices of organizations like the International Competition Network.
This document discusses competition regulation and the relationship between sector regulators and competition authorities in various jurisdictions. It notes that most countries establish both sector regulators to oversee specific industries as well as general competition authorities. However, overlaps and conflicts can sometimes arise between the two. The document explores various approaches that countries take to managing the relationship and resolving potential conflicts between these two types of regulatory bodies, including through statutory provisions for consultation, concurrence on decisions, and mechanisms for resolving disputes. It provides examples from jurisdictions like the EU, UK, Australia and others to illustrate different models for structuring the high-level relationship between sector regulators and competition authorities.
This document discusses competition and regulation in India. It begins by outlining the rationale for competition and the benefits it provides like efficiency and lower prices. However, perfect competition is difficult to achieve in reality. Some sectors require regulation due to natural monopolies or to ensure standards and access. Both competition laws and sector regulations aim to promote consumer welfare, but they can sometimes overlap or conflict in their approaches. The document examines regulatory frameworks in other countries and how they coordinate competition authorities and sector regulators. It argues that in India, laws could better delineate jurisdictions and provide for consultation between authorities to minimize conflicts and maximize benefits of competition.
A exposition on the provisions relating to the anti-competitive agreements and cartels during a seminar on competition law and policy in Kolkatta in 2009 as a part of the advocacy functions of the Competition Commission of India(CCI).
As a part of the advocacy efforts of the Competition Commission of India(CCI),a presentation to explain the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002, in so far as they relate to the abuse of dominant position in a conference in collaboration with Kerala High Court in Kochi.
A detailed presentation on the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 ,in so far as it relates to the anti-competitive agreements and cartels during a seminar on competition policy and law in Kerala. This was a part of advocacy function of the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
This document summarizes a recent ruling by the German Federal Supreme Court that clarified two issues regarding private antitrust enforcement in Germany. The ruling confirmed that indirect purchasers have standing to bring damages claims. It also allowed defendants to use a "pass-on defense" to argue that the claimant passed on some or all of the damages to subsequent purchasers in the supply chain. However, the document notes that the ruling raised new questions about burden of proof standards regarding the pass-on defense that will need to be addressed in future cases.
More from KK Sharma Law Offices (Delhi, Brasilia, Ottawa, UAE, Brussels, Netherlands and Washington DC) (20)
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptxEduSkills OECD
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
LAND USE LAND COVER AND NDVI OF MIRZAPUR DISTRICT, UPRAHUL
This Dissertation explores the particular circumstances of Mirzapur, a region located in the
core of India. Mirzapur, with its varied terrains and abundant biodiversity, offers an optimal
environment for investigating the changes in vegetation cover dynamics. Our study utilizes
advanced technologies such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote sensing to
analyze the transformations that have taken place over the course of a decade.
The complex relationship between human activities and the environment has been the focus
of extensive research and worry. As the global community grapples with swift urbanization,
population expansion, and economic progress, the effects on natural ecosystems are becoming
more evident. A crucial element of this impact is the alteration of vegetation cover, which plays a
significant role in maintaining the ecological equilibrium of our planet.Land serves as the foundation for all human activities and provides the necessary materials for
these activities. As the most crucial natural resource, its utilization by humans results in different
'Land uses,' which are determined by both human activities and the physical characteristics of the
land.
The utilization of land is impacted by human needs and environmental factors. In countries
like India, rapid population growth and the emphasis on extensive resource exploitation can lead
to significant land degradation, adversely affecting the region's land cover.
Therefore, human intervention has significantly influenced land use patterns over many
centuries, evolving its structure over time and space. In the present era, these changes have
accelerated due to factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Information regarding land use and
cover is essential for various planning and management tasks related to the Earth's surface,
providing crucial environmental data for scientific, resource management, policy purposes, and
diverse human activities.
Accurate understanding of land use and cover is imperative for the development planning
of any area. Consequently, a wide range of professionals, including earth system scientists, land
and water managers, and urban planners, are interested in obtaining data on land use and cover
changes, conversion trends, and other related patterns. The spatial dimensions of land use and
cover support policymakers and scientists in making well-informed decisions, as alterations in
these patterns indicate shifts in economic and social conditions. Monitoring such changes with the
help of Advanced technologies like Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems is
crucial for coordinated efforts across different administrative levels. Advanced technologies like
Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems
9
Changes in vegetation cover refer to variations in the distribution, composition, and overall
structure of plant communities across different temporal and spatial scales. These changes can
occur natural.
Level 3 NCEA - NZ: A Nation In the Making 1872 - 1900 SML.pptHenry Hollis
The History of NZ 1870-1900.
Making of a Nation.
From the NZ Wars to Liberals,
Richard Seddon, George Grey,
Social Laboratory, New Zealand,
Confiscations, Kotahitanga, Kingitanga, Parliament, Suffrage, Repudiation, Economic Change, Agriculture, Gold Mining, Timber, Flax, Sheep, Dairying,
A Visual Guide to 1 Samuel | A Tale of Two HeartsSteve Thomason
These slides walk through the story of 1 Samuel. Samuel is the last judge of Israel. The people reject God and want a king. Saul is anointed as the first king, but he is not a good king. David, the shepherd boy is anointed and Saul is envious of him. David shows honor while Saul continues to self destruct.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 InventoryCeline George
In this slide, we'll explore how to set up warehouses and locations in Odoo 17 Inventory. This will help us manage our stock effectively, track inventory levels, and streamline warehouse operations.
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit InnovationTechSoup
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
Pengantar Penggunaan Flutter - Dart programming language1.pptx
State of merger control in India
1. Competition Law ReportsB-112 [Vol. 2
COMPETITION LAW REPORTS AUGUST, 201380
State of Merger Control in India*
K K Sharma**
“ India recently completed a little over two years of regulation of combinations.
In contrast to the exaggerated fears associated with the likely bringing into force
of the provisions relating to regulation of combinations before the provisions
were actually notified w.e.f. June 1, 2011, the two years have passed rather
peacefully. The author , Mr. K K Sharma, former Head of Merger Control and
Director General, CCI, who laid the foundations of regulation of combinations
in India by way of devising the Merger Review Format as well as making it
successfully functional , reviews the performance of Competition Commission of
India in regulation of combinations and discusses the associated issues. He also
throws light on merger filing Form 1 which is almost the simplest in the world
for a jurisdiction having almost the highest thresholds in the world. He places on
record the deft handling of the regulation of combinations by CCI.”
1st
June, 2011 was the day India entered
into the club of the countries having fully
functional competition law1
. After
considerable speculation, doubts,
oppositions and persuasions, carrying
all the stakeholders together, India
finally set in place a mechanism for
reviewing the acquisitions, mergers and
amalgamations (called “combinations”
under Indian law) from the perspective
of competition law. Even after having
been enacted in January 2003, on account
of certain legal challenges, the
enforcement provisions of the
Competition Act, 2002 (Act) could not be
brought into force in India till as late as
May 20, 2009. Even after the
commencement of enforcement of
provisions relating to the prohibition of
anticompetitive agreements and abuse of
dominant position, the opposition to the
complete implementation of competition
law in India did not die down. The
opposition was more from domestic
* This article was first published in Competition Policy International, Inc. For more details
please visit Competition Policy International .com
** KK Sharma Law Offices & ex-Director General, CCI. For further details, visit
www.kkslawoffices.com and the author can be reached on kksharma@kkslawoffices.com
or kksharmairs@gmail.com
1 Notification dated March 4, 2011; http://www.cci.gov.in/images/media/notifications/
SO479%28E%29,480%28E%29,481%28E%29,482%28E%292406 11.pdf
2. B-1132013]
COMPETITION LAW REPORTS AUGUST, 2013
State of Merger Control in India
81
constituents as they saw in it another
layer of Government regulation which,
to the extent possible, was better kept in
abeyance.
The reasons for opposing merger review
regime were varied. Starting from the
speculation that the CCI would be sitting
over merger clearances for a long time
and thus delaying business transactions,
to the claims that the CCI did not have a
capacity to review complex mergers
being a new competition agency, all
types of conjectures and surmises were
being thrown around with the sole
objective that a fully functional
competition agency does not come to
existence in India. In any case, history
shows that in any jurisdiction - be it the
US, Canada or EU - competition law
enforcement has not been welcomed with
open arms by businesses to begin with.
These oppositions had their impact.
Despite the competition law becoming
functional as early as May 2009, it took a
little more than two years for merger
control to come into existence. It was of
no little help that the draft merger control
regulations were already prepared, in-
house by the CCI, and were ready to be
tested on the ground. However, the fact
that the Act had certain areas in need of
improvement, harmonization and, in
some cases, plain typographical error
removal, efforts to stall the introduction
of merger review into the country
succeeded. There was even talk of first
amending the Act before the provisions
could be brought into force.
In early 2011, good sense prevailed and
the proposal of bringing in amendments
before the merger control provisions
could be brought into force was shelved.
Instead, the logical argument that
amendments only be considered if faults
were found with the Act as it existed. It
was the result of this changed thinking
within the Government of India that a
beginning towards a fully-functional
competition law regime in India could
be made.
2 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=73c4fdd7-9776-41cd-8fbb-
3a7dd96c8c7c
The CCI finally unveiled its
final draft merger regulations
to the world on May 11,
2011 after consulting a wide
body of stakeholders
including business houses,
law firms, professional
associations, business and
industry chambers,
consumer organizations and
government departments
The CCI finally unveiled its final draft
merger regulations to the world on May
11, 2011 after consulting a wide body of
stakeholders including business houses,
law firms, professional associations,
business and industry chambers,
consumer organizations and
government departments. Despite grim
warnings to the contrary, 1st
June, 2011
came and went without any earth-
shattering obstructions to the normal
peaceful existence to the business
enterprises; It was business as usual. On
the contrary, the international antitrust
community welcomed2
the performance
of an Indian merger control regime.
Very soon, the CCI realized that some
areas of the regime needed
improvements. For example, the review
machinery of CCI was avoidably clogged
by a large number of intra-group merger
filings, many of which did not change
the control dynamics of enterprises. To
3. Competition Law ReportsB-114 [Vol. 2
COMPETITION LAW REPORTS AUGUST, 2013
ease the burden on businesses in these
cases, the CCI relaxed the merger review
format by amending the merger
regulations so as to ensure that those
merger filings that did not result in a
change of control did not have to seek
approval of the CCI. Similarly, the
regulator noticed that harmony between
the security regulator (SEBI)
requirements and merger review by CCI
could be further enhanced. This was
done by suitably amending merger
regulations. The highlights of the first
amendments to the combination
regulations, of February, 2012, by the CCI
are as follows:
• No requirement to file for merger
review if the cumulative share
purchase is below 25 percent
(compared to the earlier 15 percent).
• No filing requirement for intra-
group mergers or amalgamations
involving enterprises wholly
owned by the group companies.
• Acquisitions of shares or voting
rights pursuant to buy backs and
acquisition of shares or voting
rights pursuant to subscription of
rights issue (without the restriction
of their “entitled proportion”), not
leading to acquisition of control,
included in the list of transactions
in Schedule I which lists
transactions where a merger filing
need not be made.
• The Company Secretary of the
company, duly authorized by the
Board, was authorized to sign Form
1 or Form 2, in addition to those
persons specified under the general
regulations.
• The distinction for filling up Part I
for certain types of transactions and
Part II for the remaining
transactions was removed, leading
to clarity and uniformity.
On gaining further experience, the
combination regulations were
amended once again by the CCI in
April, 2013. The main changes
were as follows:
• No notice need be filed for
acquisition of shares or voting
rights of companies if the
acquisition is less than five percent
of the shares or voting rights of the
company in a financial year, where
the acquirer already holds more
than 25 percent but less than 50
percent of the shares or voting rights
of the company.
• Where one of the enterprises had
more than 50 percent shares or
voting rights of the other enterprise,
filing of notice with CCI for
mergers/amalgamations involving
these two enterprises was not
needed. Similarly, if more than 50
percent shares or voting rights in
each of such enterprises are held
by enterprise(s) within the same
group, no notice was needed.
• Some rationalization in the
categories of exemption for
acquisition of certain current assets
like stock-in-trade, raw materials
etc.
On completion, more than two years after
the journey into a merger control regime
began, it is the right time to look at the
performance of the CCI in this vital area
of competition law enforcement. When
the final merger regulations were
notified by the CCI, there was great
excitement as well as doubts about the
rules being laid down by the competition
agency of India. There was a great
curiosity about the CCI - especially for
its capacity to deliver. Until that time,
despite the commencement of provisions
relating to anti-competitive agreements
and abuse of dominance, the markets felt
hardly any impact because of the matters
before CCI. Compared to the performance
of neighboring Pakistan where, right in
the first 18 months of its existence, the
CCP had showcased a considerable
amount of work it did in exposing cartels
82
4. B-1152013]
COMPETITION LAW REPORTS AUGUST, 2013
and issuing government advisories, the
performance of Indian competition
agency was considered quite slow.
Similarly, in another neighborly
comparison, although the Act in India
was enacted much earlier than China’s,
China enacted and brought into force its
Anti Monopoly law much earlier than
India. It also started merger control with
a bang and the Coca-Cola case became a
selling point for antitrust law in China.
Perhaps an open and vibrant democracy
has a price.
India opted for a mandatory filing regime.
As of today, the thresholds for triggering
the filing requirements are as follows:
ASSETS TURNOVER
In India Enterprise INR 1,500 Crores INR 4,500 Crores
(approximately USD 330 million) (approximately USD 1 billion)
Group INR 6,000 Crores (approximately INR18,000 Crores
USD 1,320 million) (approximately USD 4 billion)
In India ASSETS TURNOVER
or outside
Total India Total India
Enterprise USD 750 INR 750 Crores USD 2.25 INR 2,250 Crores
million (approximately billion (approximately
USD 165 million) USD 500 million)
Group USD 3 INR 750 Crores USD 9 INR 2,250 Crores
billion (approximately billion (approximately
USD 165 million) USD 500 million)
As would be obvious to any discerning
eye, the Indian thresholds for merger
filings are extremely high - perhaps the
highest in the world. Interestingly, even
the default merger filing form, Form 1, is
also, perhaps, the simplest in the world.
After having faced the severe criticisms
for having a very burdensome filing form
and low thresholds, prior to the
commencement of enforcement of merger
control in India, these may appear to be
quite stark revelations to many.
Starting from 1st
June, 2011, till the end of
June 2013, following number of merger
cases has been reviewed by the CCI:
S. N. Year Reviews
1. 2013 (till June, 2013) 28
2. 2012 82
3. 2011 13
Total 123
Thus, starting from 1st
June, 2011 - a little
more than two years since the
commencement of merger review having
come into force - a total of 123 cases of
acquisitions, mergers and
amalgamations have been reviewed by
the CCI. There have been studies3
indicating the average time it takes the
CCI to review a merger as just over a
fortnight - which is a relatively quick
merger review clearance by any
standards, especially for a new agency
commencing operations in the midst of
questions about its effectiveness.
As would be obvious to any
discerning eye, the Indian
thresholds for merger filings
are extremely high - perhaps
the highest in the world
3 http://www.slashdocs.com/qispu/combination-review-in-india-a-mid-year-review-by-
kk-sharma-part-1.html
State of Merger Control in India
83
5. Competition Law ReportsB-116 [Vol. 2
COMPETITION LAW REPORTS AUGUST, 2013
So far, nearly all merger filings have been
through the simple form - Form No 1. On
account of the pressure of stakeholders,
the first draft of merger regulations was
made in such a way that the opponents
of merger review did not get an
opportunity to create unnecessary noise.
The first form for merger filing was such
that, effectively, it was almost
discretionary to make a merger filing.
This was due to the fact that even the
most basic information about a
transaction was to follow on the
assertion of the merger-filing party that
the transaction was not falling within
some stated categories given in the
schedule and the regulations. It was
quite a big relief to businesses, but how
helpful it was for competition assessment
can be gauged from the fact that, despite
being under no obligation to do so, nearly
all the merger filings voluntarily
included the details of the transaction,
as well as the reason why it was not to
cause an appreciable adverse effect on
competition (AAEC - the substantive test
for evaluation of mergers in India).
Despite having a mandatory merger
review regime, the first filing
requirements practically gave the merger
filer entire discretion on which form to
choose: Form 1 or Form 2. Form 1 is
minimalistic in the information sought;
a large proportion of merger filings are
through Form 1 only.
For all practical purposes, nearly
everybody was using Form 1. The basic
reason for introducing this was that any
burden on business would have been
used as a handle by the hawks amongst
those opposing merger controls, leading
to a further possible postponement of
enforcement of merger control on
different grounds. The cases filed
through Form 2 could be counted not
only on one’s fingertips, but on a single
finger. These were the only cases in
which some horizontal overlap amongst
products and services was admitted by
the parties. Prior to these cases, in no case
was any horizontal overlap between
products and services either admitted or
claimed by the CCI during the merger
review.
A look at India’s journey and
progression of merger control
enforcement shows a very slow
movement. No doubt, the prompt
clearances by the CCI, a laudable
achievement, have been widely
appreciated.4
However, where do we go
from here? Do we have similar glowing
testimonials for an in-depth analysis and
incisive dissection of the issues? One
possibility may be that all the cases
coming before the CCI really had no
competitive concerns. But if we look at
the Indian thresholds, nearly the highest
in the world, wherein only the big ticket
acquisitions, mergers and
amalgamations come under the CCI
scanner, the possibility of some cases
containing issues that can only be dealt
with through modification cannot be
ruled out, if looked at carefully. The
modification mechanism (called
“remedies” elsewhere) has not yet been
tried and tested in full. However, there is
a silver lining.
Gradually, the CCI is increasing the rigor
of review. Except for giving plain
approvals, there are some notable
exceptions where the CCI examined the
agreements in detail and directed some
agreements to be amended to change
some of the conditions considered
anticompetitive. Two cases stand out:
Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. (Combination Reg. No. C-2012/09/
79), and Mylan Inc. (Combination Reg.
No. C-2013/04/116). In the case of
4 http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=73c4fdd7-9776-41cd-8fbb-
3a7dd96c8c7c
84
6. B-1172013]
COMPETITION LAW REPORTS AUGUST, 2013
Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, the
CCI observed “non compete obligations,
if deemed necessary to be incorporated,
should be reasonable particularly in
respect of (a) the duration over which
such restraint is enforceable; and (b) the
business activities, geographical areas
and person(s) subject to such restraint,
so as to ensure that such obligations do
not result in an appreciable adverse
effect on competition.”5
Similarly, in its order dated June 20, 2013,
in the case of Mylan Inc. (Combination
Registration No. C-2013/04/116), the
CCI has accepted the modifications
offered by the parties under
Regulation 19(2) of the combinations
regulations. In both these cases, the CCI
put into practice the provisions of
Regulation 19(2) of the combination
regulations. Under these regulations, the
parties to the combination can come
forward with modifications to the
combinations on their own which may
be accepted by the CCI. This is something
similar to the undertakings in EU.
Another case stands out for comment: the
notice for acquisition given by GSPC
Distribution Networks Limited
(“GDNL”) to acquire Gujarat Gas
Company Ltd. (GGCL) (Combination
Registration No.: C-2012/11/88). In this
case, an undertaking was taken from
GGCL to modify the agreements of GGCL
with its customers. Object of this exercise
is not known. This kind of action is
fascinating and sometimes questionable.
The question which arises is if one party
is acquiring another enterprise, what is
important: the possible future conduct,
or the past conduct? If an agreement
being routinely entered into with its
clients comes to the knowledge of the CCI
during a merger filing, should the CCI
start examining it in addition to the
5 http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/CombinationOrders/C-2012-09-
79.pdf
review of merger filing? In merger
control, it is the counterfactual (situation
where the merger has not happened)
which is important for evaluating the
impact of a merger on competition in the
market. If counterfactual does not show
any adverse impact on the competitive
environment for the product under
question, is it alright to get entangled in
side issues? Or ideally speaking, should
such cases be dealt with in a different
manner? Even if some compellingly
anticompetitive practice comes to notice
during merger review, should it be mixed
with the job at hand or dealt separately?
What the CCI did in this case was to
allow the merger, but accept
undertakings to modify the agreements.
However, it is noteworthy that the CCI
has been able to prove all of its critics
wrong by ensuring that even within the
country, amongst various regulatory
approvals, the approval from the CCI is
almost invariably the first to come. This
has certainly gone down well with
businesses and has helped quell negative
noise about the CCI becoming another
government regulator delaying business
transactions and raising the cost of
business. On the whole it can be said that
the CCI has generally had a good start on
merger review. The importance of
economic analysis has been well
recognised and CCI is paying enough
attention to this aspect. At least 40 per cent
of the CCI is made up of economists. This
compares well with even the most mature
antitrust jurisdictions. One thing can
certainly be said: the CCI is not shying
away from learning from experience.
Until now, two significant amendments
have taken place in merger regulations,
both of which aimed at ensuring a more
workable and practical merger control
review in India. Having travelled safely
so far, we wish the CCI bon voyage ahead.
State of Merger Control in India
85