In March 2025, notable developments have emerged in the Indian competition regulatory landscape. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has reduced the penalty imposed on Google from INR 936.44 crores (approximately USD 109 million) to INR 216.69 crores (approximately USD 25.3 million) in a case involving allegations of Google’s abuse of dominance in relation to its Google Play Store. In addition, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) has directed an investigation into Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited for suspected abuse of dominant market position. Meanwhile, in another matter, the CCI has closed an information filed against Microsoft. On the merger control front, the CCI has approved several prominent combinations, including acquisitions by ONGC NTPC Green Private Limited, Tata Sons Private Limited, and Ambuja Cements Limited, among others.

For keeping our readers updated, in this edition we provide a quick snapshot of the regulation of cartelization under Indian Competition Law, followed by brief of orders / judgements by NCLAT, anti-trust orders passed, and combinations approved by the CCI, along with information on upcoming events. 

I. Regulation of cartels under Indian Competition Law

In India, cartels are regulated under Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002 (as amended in 2023) (“Act”). The provision of Section 3(1) of the Act prohibits agreements that cause or are likely to cause appreciable adverse effect on the competition (“AAEC”) in India and in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act, such agreements are declared void. The provision of Section 3(3) of the Act regulates horizontal agreements including cartels whereas Section 3(4) of the Act regulates vertical agreements.   

Under the Act, cartels are defined to include an association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders or service providers who, by agreement amongst themselves, limit, control or attempt to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or, trade in goods or provision of services. In terms of Section 3(3) of the Act, horizontal agreements including cartels, are presumed to have AAEC if such agreement(s) – (i) directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices; (ii) limits or controls production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or provision of services; (iii) shares the market or source of production or provision of services by way of allocation of geographical area of market, or type of goods or services, or number of customers in the market or any other similar way; and (iv) directly or indirectly results in bid rigging or collusive bidding. Once the presumption of existence of AAEC is established, the burden of proof shifts to the charged parties to prove that the agreement does not lead to AAEC in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act. Additionally, any agreement entered into by way of joint ventures that increases efficiency in production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, is exempt from the provision of Section 3(3) of the Act. Further, vide the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023, an arrangement of ‘hub & spokes’ cartel is also subject to the provision of Section 3(3) of the Act.   

II. Judgements passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal 

i. National Competition Law Appellate Tribunal reduces Google’s penalty from INR 936.44 crores (approx. USD 109 million) to INR 216.69 crores (approx. USD 25.3 million)

Alphabet Inc. & Ors. Vs. Competition Commission of India (Competition Appeal (AT) No. 04 of 2023)

The NCLAT vide its judgement dated 28.03.2025 reduced the penalty of Google from INR 936.44 crores (approx. USD 109 million) to INR 216.69 crores (approx. USD 25.3 million) in a matter related to Google’s abuse of dominance concerning its Google Play Store. The NCLAT in its judgment noted that the CCI had erroneously computed the penalty based on total turnover of Google instead of relevant turnover i.e., turnover of Google Play Store. As a result, the NCLAT modified the penalty accordingly. 

The NCLAT in its judgment upheld the findings of the CCI that –  i) Google has imposed an unfair and discriminatory condition in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act by mandating app developers to use the Google Play Billing System (“GPBS”) for distributing paid apps and in-app content, while exempting its own applications, such as YouTube, from the same requirement; ii) Google has violated the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act by leveraging its dominance in the markets for licensable mobile OS and app store for Android OS to promote and protect its position in the market for UPI enabled digital payment apps, particularly in favour of its own app, Google Pay. 

Additionally, the NCLAT overturned the findings of the CCI that – i) Google had violated Section 4(2)(c) of the Act by abusing its dominant position in the app store market to deny market access to payment processors. The NCLAT noted that payments through GPBS account for less than 1% of the market, with 99% of the market remaining open to payment processors, which cannot be construed as a denial of market access; ii) Google’s requirement for mandatorily using of GPBS has violated Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act by limiting or restricting technical or scientific development relating to goods or services to the prejudice of consumers. 

ii. National Competition Law Appellate Tribunal dismisses appeal filed by Steel Authority of India concerning bid-rigging and cartelization among stevedoring agencies at Paradip Port 

Steel Authority of India Limited & Anr vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors. (Competition Appeal. (AT) No. 11 of 2021)

The NCLAT vide its judgement dated 21.03.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by Steel Authority of India Limited & Paradip Port Trust against CCI order dated 07.07.2021 passed in case no. 12 of 2021. The appellants in their information before the CCI alleged bid-rigging and cartelization among stevedoring agencies at Paradip Port in the tendering processes. Before NCLAT, the appellants submitted that the information was filed with the CCI on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”) and it being an exceptional case, the CCI ought not to have closed the information at the prima facie stage only but should have at least ordered an investigation into the matter. It was further submitted that the information filed by the appellants is akin to a reference under Section 21 of the Act as the same was based on an Office Memorandum of the CVC. The NCLAT rejected the said argument and noted that in terms of Section 21 of the Act, a reference must be made by a statutory authority in respect of an issue to the CCI and that an information under Section 19 of the Act cannot be treated akin to a reference. Additionally, NCLAT concurred with the observations of the CCI that the information supplied is bereft of any material regarding the nature of the cartel, who all are the members of the cartel, how the cartel operates, restrictions brought about by the cartel and how bids issued by SAIL have been manipulated or rigged by the members of the cartel, and in the absence of such material particulars, an investigation could not have been ordered by the CCI.

III. Orders Passed and Combinations Approved by the Competition Commission of India

i. Competition Commission of India orders investigation against Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited for alleged abuse of dominance

In Re: Chakra R Prabakaran vs. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (Case No. 02 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 25.03.2025 ordered an investigation against Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (“TASMAC”) for alleged abuse of dominant position in violation of provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The CCI prima facie found TASMAC in a dominant position in the relevant market of “procurement, marketing, distribution and sale of beer in the state of Tamil Nadu” and abusing its said dominant position by limiting market access to certain brands of beer in the state of Tamil Nadu in contravention of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. In view of the same, the CCI passed an order of investigation against TASMAC under Section 26(1) of the Act.  

ii. Competition Commission of India closes information against Microsoft Corporation & Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited.

In Re: XYZ vs. Microsoft Corporation & Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited (Case No. 03 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 03.03.2025 closed an information filed against Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited (collectively, “Microsoft”) for alleged abuse of dominance in contravention of Section 4 of the Act. It was alleged that Microsoft has abused its dominant position by preinstalling and setting up its own antivirus software, namely, Microsoft Defender, as a pre-activated default antivirus app in its Windows Operating System (“Windows OS”) which has resulted in – i) imposition of an unfair condition by Microsoft in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act; ii) restriction of technical and scientific development in the market for antivirus applications in violation Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act; iii) violation of Section 4(2)(d) of the Act as Microsoft’s conduct of bundling its own security software with the Windows OS amounts to the conclusion of a contract subject to acceptance of a supplementary obligation i.e.,  pre-installed security software. It was also alleged that Microsoft has leveraged its dominant position in the market for operating systems for personal computers in India to safeguard its position in the market for computer security (antivirus) software for Windows OS in violation of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. Lastly, it was also alleged that Microsoft has violated Section 4(2)(c) of the Act by restricting the development and market access of rival security software developers by making its Microsoft Virus Initiative (“MVI”) membership mandatory for listing in the Microsoft Store. 

The CCI in its analysis defined the first relevant market as the ‘market for Licensable Operating Systems (OSs) for desktops/laptops in India’ and for the purposes of allegation pertaining to leveraging of dominance, defined the second relevant market as the ‘market for desktop/laptop security (antivirus) software for Windows OS in India’. Further, based on the market share, dependence of consumers, and vertical integration of Microsoft, the CCI prima facie found Microsoft to be dominant in the first relevant market. With respect to the allegations pertaining to the imposition of an unfair condition in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, the CCI found no element of compulsion as pre-installation of alternative third-party antivirus software on desktops and laptops running on Windows OS was also permitted by Microsoft. Additionally, CCI also noted that other OS providers, such as macOS and ChromeOS, also include built-in antivirus functionality in place. Regarding the violation of Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the CCI noted that the same appears to be speculative as there was no relevant proof of harm resulting in any actual or potential impediment to technical and scientific development. Next, with respect to allegations pertaining to violation of Section 4(2)(d) of the Act, CCI noted that the requirements of tying and bundling as stipulated by CCI in its past decision of Harshita Chawla vs Whatsapp and Anr. (Case No. 15 of 2020) are not met.  Regarding the allegation of Microsoft leveraging its dominant position, the CCI observed that in the absence of compelling evidence of restrictive practices, the said allegation is unsubstantiated. Lastly, with respect to the allegation regarding restricting the development and market access of rival security software developers, CCI observed that MVI membership is not mandatory, as developers can create antivirus applications independently and the MVI program is designed to support organizations in improving their security solutions on Windows. Furthermore, non-MVI antivirus developers are not restricted from distributing their applications on Windows. 

In view of the aforesaid observations, the CCI found no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act by Microsoft and passed an order of closure under Section 26(2) of the Act.

iii. Competition Commission of India upholds procurers right to freely exercise their choice in the procurement of goods and services by closing an information against Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and RailTel Corporation of India Limited   

In Re: XYZ vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and RailTel Corporation of India Ltd (Case No. 25 of 2024)

The CCI vide Order dated 03.03.2025 closed an information filed against Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (“OP-1”) and RailTel Corporation of India Ltd. (“OP-2”) for alleged violation of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. The informant alleged that OP-1 has abused its dominant position by appointing OP-2 as the Project Management Consultant (“PMC”) for the implementation of Prime Minister Schools for Rising India (“PM SHRI”) scheme in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (“JNV”) schools across India without providing any reasonable justifications as to why OP-2 was selected to carry out the work order dated 24.01.2024 for supply & implementation of Integrated Infrastructure & IT solutions (“Work Order”) under the PM SHRI scheme in JNV schools. The informant also alleged that OP-2 has abused its dominant position in releasing a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) dated 01.12.2023 for selection of partner for supply & implementation of Integrated Infrastructure & IT solutions pursuant to the Work Order, which restricted entry of entities in the bidding process and also outlined a very broad scope of work that is not capable of being carried out by any one entity in its entirety.

With respect to the allegations regarding violation of Section 3 of the Act, the CCI noted that the informant has alleged tacit agreement between OP-1 and OP-2 in awarding tender; however, it has not provided any evidence or material which could indicate bid rigging in violation of Section 3 of the Act. With respect to the allegations of violation of Section 4 of the Act, the CCI noted that the alleged appointment of OP-2 by OP-1 as PMC and issuance of RFP by OP-2 are not amenable under Section 4 of the Act without any supporting evidence and cannot be said to be abusive in terms of Section 4 of the Act unless and until there are availability of ingredients of the abuse as required under the Act. Additionally, CCI upheld the rights and liberty of the procurer to set the terms and conditions for procurement based on its requirements and to freely exercise their choice in the procurement of goods and services. In view of the same, the CCI held that there is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act and passed an order of closure under Section 26(2) of the Act.

iv. Competition Commission of India reiterates that mere commonality of directors or ownership does not ipso facto imply collusion without evidence

In Re: XYZ vs. Aegis Logistics Limited, Indus Petro Chem Limited, and Sea Lord Containers Limited (Case No. 07 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 03.03.2025 closed an information filed against Aegis Logistics Limited (“OP-1”), Indus Petro Chem Limited (“OP-2”), and Sea Lord Containers Limited (“OP-3”) (collectively, “OPs”) for alleged violation of bid-rigging. The Informant alleged that the OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 belong to the same group under the same management and control and have collusively participated in the tenders floated by New Mangalore Port Trust (“NMPT”) resulting in bid-rigging in violation of Section 3(3) of the Act. The Informant alleged that OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 could have participated as a consortium / joint venture in tenders but participated individually only to indulge in anti-competitive practices by acting identically.

The CCI considered the matter and sought response from the authority in relation to tenders dated 11.01.2021 (cancelled tender) and 22.04.2021. After examining the material on record, the CCI noted that the allegations of OPs acting identically have not been supported by any evidence by the informant and held that merely being related to each other, without any evidence of likely collusion, cannot be a ground for an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act. The CCI while referring to its previous rulings in the cases of In Re: Ved Prakash Tripathi v. Director General Armed Forces Medical Services & Ors. (Case No. 10 of 2020) and, In Re: Reprographics India v. Hitachi Systems Micro Clinic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 41 of 2018), reiterated that mere commonality of directors or ownership of participating firms is not sufficient to record any prima facie conclusion about bid rigging in the absence of any material indicating collusion amongst such bidders while participating in the impugned tender. 

v. Competition Commission of India closes information alleging bid-rigging in tenders floated in relation to scheme of Pradhan Mantri Vishwakarma Yojana  

In Re: Kuldeepsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja vs. Pragyawan Technologies Private Limited & Anr. (Case No. 30 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 03.03.2025 closed an information filed against Pragyawan Technologies Private Limited (“OP-1”), and KLN Engineering Private Limited (“OP-2”) for alleged bid-rigging in the tenders floated by the National Small Industries Corporation Limited (“OP-4”), the Nodal Agency of the Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (“OP-3”), on the Government e-Marketplace (“OP-5/GeM”), with respect to the procurement of Toolkits for workers under the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Vishwakarma Yojana (“PMVY”). PMVY was launched on 17.09.2023 to provide end-to-end support to artisans and craftspeople who work with their hands and tools covering 18 different types of trades. On 27.04.2024, OP-4 issued a Notice Inviting Proposal (“NIP”) inviting 18 RFPs on behalf of OP-3. The Informant alleged that – i) OP-4 issued NIP in violation of Rules 149,159,160 and 161 of General Financial Rules, 2017 (“GFR, 2017”) as the same was uploaded on the platform of OP-5 / GeM; ii)  OP-1 and OP-2 engaged in bid-rigging in the said tenders as in almost all the 18 tenders OP-1 and OP-2 had submitted their RFPs and in the 18 tenders, OP-2 was declared disqualified at technical stage and OP-1 emerged as L1; iii) OP-3 and OP-4 relaxed the eligibility criteria in favour of OP-1 by reducing the eligibility criteria of average financial turnover so that OP-1 could benefit and qualify; and iv) OP-1 was declared qualified in certain RFPs despite not meeting the eligibility criteria. 

With respect to the allegations at Sr. no. i), ii) and iii), the CCI noted that the same, prima facie, does not seem to constitute a potential violation of any of the provisions of the Act and did not examine them further. With respect to the allegation of bid-rigging by OP-1 and OP-2, CCI examined the status of all 18 RFPs forming part of NIP and observed that OP-1 has been declared technically qualified in multiple RFPs while OP-2 has been technically disqualified in all of them and did not find OP-1 to be the L-1 in any of the RFPs, as alleged by the Informant. Thus, in view of the same, the CCI found no prima facie case of contravention of Section 3 of the Act and passed an order of closure under Section 26(2) of the Act.

vi. Competition Commission of India closes information against M/s A&T Europe SpA, M/s Myrtha Pools India Private Limited, and Public Works Division Akola, Maharashtra

In Re: Mr. Vinish Khanna vs. M/s A&T Europe SpA & Anr. (Case No. 15 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 21.03.2025 closed an information filed against M/s A&T Europe SpA (“OP-1”), Myrtha Pools India Private Limited (“OP-2”), and Public Works Division Akola, Maharashtra (“OP-3”) for alleged violation of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act in relation to a tender floated by OP-3 for inviting bids for construction of Olympic standard swimming pool. 

The Informant alleged that – i) OP-3 has acted in violation of Section 4 of the Act by specifying the brand product/technology of OP-1 rather than specifications for the material and/or project which has foreclosed competition for other players to participate in the impugned tender; and ii) there exists an anti-competitive agreement between OP-1 and OP-3 due to which OP-1 has monopoly over the supply of material and technology in the impugned tender and resultantly, charging an exorbitant amount of money for carrying out the project under the impugned tender in contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

With respect to the allegations of violation of Section 4 of the Act, the CCI delineated the relevant market as the ‘market for procurement of services for construction of swimming pools’ and the relevant geographic market as ‘pan India’; however, it did not find OP-3 to be dominant in the said relevant market. With respect to the allegations of violation of Section 3 of the Act, the CCI found no material on record to substantiate the allegations of anti-competitive conduct by the OPs. In view of the same, CCI found no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act and passed an order of closure under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.

vii. Competition Commission of India closes information against Victor Hospital 

In Re: Moses Pinto vs. Victor Hospital (Case No. 29 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 03.03.2025 closed an information filed against Victor Hospital (“OP”) by Moses Pinto for alleged violation of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. The informant was admitted to the OP’s hospital for the symptoms of acute appendicitis and had to undergo surgery which led to severe complications due to which the informant had to undergo a second corrective surgery. The Informant alleged that OP has violated the provisions of Section 3 of the Act by deliberately misrepresenting the qualification of the surgeon and has engaged in false advertisements. It was also alleged that the OP has abused its dominant position under Section 4 of the Act by employing a surgeon who lacked proper registration and presenting him to the public as a qualified consultant surgeon thereby misleading consumers and distorting the competitive healthcare market. 

With respect to the above allegations, the CCI held that the deliberate misleading of consumers through misrepresentation of the qualifications of its surgeon and engagement in false advertising by the OP does not appear to be a competition issue. In view of the same, CCI held that there is no prima-facie case of contravention of provisions of the Act and hence proceeded to pass an order of closure under Section 26(2) of the Act.

viii. Competition Commission of India closes information against Airports Authority of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Delhi International Airport Limited., GMR Airports Limited, and Fraport AG.

In Re: Fight Against Corruption (NGO) & Contractor Council of India vs. Airports Authority of India & Anr. (Case No. 12 of 2024)

The CCI vide order dated 20.03.2025 closed an information filed against Airports Authority of India (“OP-1/AAI”), Ministry of Civil Aviation (“OP-2/MoCA”), Delhi International Airport Limited (“OP-3/DIAL”), GMR Airports Limited (“OP-4/GAL”), and Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (“OP-5/Fraport AG”) by Fight Against Corruption and Contractor Council of India. The informants alleged that OP-4/GAL abused its dominant position by – i) favoring companies in which it holds a majority shares; ii) denying access to other market players by manipulating tender conditions; iii) leveraging its dominant position in the upstream market to engage in exclusionary practices and limiting the provision of services in the airport market of Delhi by ousting the other prospective contractors. It was further alleged that OP-4/GAL is not following competitive bidding processes for tenders and is creating a monopolistic environment, enabling it to operate without competitive restraints, which may result in the imposition of exorbitant charges on customers. Besides these allegations, the Informants also alleged that OP-4/GAL is charging a fee of 13% or any other fee on all tenders specifically tenders related to AMC. The Informants also alleged that OP-4/GAL in collaboration with Tenaga Parking Services (India) Private Limited (“TPSPL”) established a new company named Delhi Airport Parking Services Private Limited (“DAPSL”) for the purpose of leveraging the name and experience of TPSPL and meeting the criteria set by OP-4 for parking tenders. 

The CCI in its analysis noted that OP-3/DIAL handles all the operational contracts for IGI Airport and OP-4/GAL is not involved in the selection and/or execution of operational contracts and deems fit to analyse the conduct of OP-3/DIAL alone for the examination of allegations. With respect to the allegation of imposition of exorbitant charges on customers, CCI noted that the informants have not given any evidence and regarding allegations of imposition of a 13% fee on the tenders, it observed that the said charge is a continuation of the charges previously levied by OP-1/AAI which are being levied uniformly on all service providers, with no further increase. With respect to the allegations pertaining to parking services, CCI observed that the entity for parking services was selected through a competitive bidding process and therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. In view of the same, CCI finds no prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act and hence proceeded to pass an order of closure under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.

ix. Combinations Approved by Competition Commission of India 

I. CCI approved the acquisition of 100% equity share capital of Ayana Renewable Power Private Limited by ONGC NTPC Green Private Limited.[1] 

II. CCI approved – i) acquisition of 100% shareholding of Athaang Devanahalli Tollway Private Limited by Cube Highways and Infrastructure V Pte. Ltd. through its investment manager – National Investment and Infrastructure Fund Limited; and ii) acquisition of 100% shareholding of Athaang Jammu Udhampur Highway Private Limited and Quazigund Expressway Private Limited by Cube Highways Trust through its investment manager – Cube Highways Fund Advisors Private Limited. [2]

III. CCI approved – i) the acquisition of 100% equity stake by Concesiones 2 Private Limited of 7 road special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) wholly owned by Ashoka Concessions Limited and 4 road SPVs wholly owned by Ashoka Buildcon Limited; and ii) the acquisition of non-convertible debentures of the target SPVs by Infrastructure Yield Plus II & Infrastructure Yield Plus IIA. [3]

IV. CCI approved the acquisition of 90.5% shareholding of Uprising Science Private Limited, with eventual acquisition of the remaining 9.5% shareholding of the target in about two years from the completion date by Hindustan Unilever Limited. [4]

V. CCI approved the acquisition of certain shareholding in Schott Poonawalla Private Limited by TPG Scion SG Pte Ltd., by way of a secondary purchase from Serum Institute of India Private Limited. The said proposed transaction has been notified under Section 5(d) of the Act. [5]

VI. CCI approved the acquisition of certain shareholding in Greenko Energy Holdings from ORIX Corporation by AMG Green Power B.V., and subscription of certain convertible notes issued by AM Green (Luxembourg) S.À.R.L. by ORIX Corporation. [6]

VII. CCI approved the acquisition of 10% shareholding in Tata Play Limited from Baytree Investments (Mauritius) Pte Ltd. by Tata Sons Private Limited. [7]

VIII. CCI approved the acquisition of shareholding and certain rights in Dhoot Transmission Private Limited and Dhoot Holdings Private Limited by BC Asia Investments XV Limited and BC Asia Investments XVI Limited. [8]

IX. CCI approved the acquisition of 100% shareholding in KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited (which is currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) by JSW Energy Limited through JSW Thermal Energy One Limited. [9]

X. CCI approved the acquisition of equity shares of PSP Projects Limited by Adani Infra (India) Limited by Adani Infra (India) Limited. [10]

XI. CCI approved the acquisition of 100% shareholding of O2 Power Midco Holdings Pte. Ltd. and O2 Energy SG Pte. Ltd. by JSW Neo Energy Limited. [11]

XII. CCI approved the acquisition of Pharma Solutions business and certain product lines of Nourish business of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. by Roquette Frères S.A. [12]

XIII. CCI approved the acquisition of 12.44% shareholding of Advanta Enterprises Limited by Alpha Wave Ventures II, LP, on a fully diluted basis. [13]

XIV. CCI approved the acquisition of – i) Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Limited; ii) Ashoka Sambalpur Baragarh Tollway Limited; iii) Ashoka Belgaum Dharwad Tollway Limited; iv) Ashoka Highways (Bhandara) Limited; and v) Ashoka Highways (Durg) Limited by Maple Infrastructure Trust (formerly known as Indian Highway Concessions Trust). [14]

XV. CCI approved the acquisition of 100% subscribed and paid-up equity share capital of Raj Petro Specialities Private Limited by Shell Deutschland GmbH and Shell Overseas Investments B.V, belonging to the Shell Group. [15]

XVI. CCI approved the acquisition of 46.80% of the issued share capital of Orient Cement Limited by Ambuja Cements Limited from current promoters and public shareholders by way of an open offer. [16]

XVII. CCI approved the acquisition of a portion of assets and businesses of Anglo American plc associated with its steel-making coal portfolio in Australia by Peabody MNG Pty Ltd and Peabody SMC Pty Ltd. [17]

Deemed Approvals:

XVIII. BCSS Iota (A), LCC received deemed approval of CCI to acquire 51.26% shareholding in a HoldCo (which is in the process of being set up) which will own 100% of Milacron Marketing Company LLC, from Milacron LLC (seller). [18]

XIX. NHIT Southern Projects Private Limited received deemed approval of CCI to acquire concession rights from the National Highways Authority of India in respect of 11 road projects under the Toll-Operate-Transfer model for a concession period of 20 years. [19] 

XX. Kotak Strategic Situations India Fund II and Kotak Alternate Asset Managers Limited received deemed approval of CCI to acquire certain shareholding in Ace Designers Limited through a combination of equity shares and compulsorily convertible debentures. [20]

IV. Mark Your Calendar: Upcoming Events! 

• International Bar Association-Mergers and Acquisitions in India: a key engine to the USD 30 trillion goal scheduled on April 3 – April 4, 2025, in Mumbai. (click here)
• Law Society Competition Conference 2025 scheduled on June 25, 2025 (click here)
• CCP Annual Conference on Frontiers of Competition and Regulation scheduled on June 9 - June 10, 2025, in London (click here)
• 20th ASCOLA annual conference scheduled on June 26 - June 28, 2025, in Chicago (click here)
• 19th Annual IBA Competition Mid-Year Conference scheduled on June 12 - June 13, 2025, in Tokyo, Japan (click here)

References: 

1. C-2025/02/1247
2. C-2025/02/1246
3. C-2025/02/1242
4. C-2025/01/1238
5. C-2025/01/1237
6. C-2025/01/1236
7. C-2025/01/1235
8. C-2025/01/1234
9. C-2025/01/1233
10. C-2025/01/1232
11. C-2025/01/1231
12. C-2025/01/1230
13. C-2025/01/1229
14. C-2025/01/1228
15. C-2025/01/1227
16. C-2024/11/1206
17. C-2024/12/1213
18. C-2025/03/1259
19. C-2025/03/1258
20. C-2025/03/1265