Merger Control in India: CCI, Companies Act & Competition Act

Merger Control in India: An In-Depth Analysis of CCI Regulatory Framework Under Companies Act, 2013 And Competition Act, 2002

Abstract

Merger regulation acts as an essential component of competition law, guaranteeing that mergers between firms do not cause monopolies or significantly harm competition (AAEC) in the marketplace. In India, the main regulatory authority responsible for examining mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations, collectively known as “combinations,” is the Competition Commission of India (CCI), as mandated by the Competition Act, 2002. This article examines the regulatory framework and enforcement strategies of merger control in India, placing particular emphasis on the developing jurisprudence and procedural systems implemented by the CCI.

The Indian merger control framework is mainly ex-ante, necessitating that parties involved in a merger inform the CCI prior to completion if they exceed specific thresholds concerning assets and revenue. The article starts by exploring the legal requirements outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of the Competition Act, 2002, which establish the jurisdictional limits and require prior consent for combinations. It also reviews the Combination Regulations, 2011, which have undergone several amendments to streamline processes, include the Green Channel option, and lighten regulatory load on uncomplicated transactions.

An in-depth examination is offered regarding the functions, authority, and investigative processes of the CCI, featuring the two-stage investigation framework — Phase I (initial assessment) and Phase II (comprehensive analysis) — along with the stipulations related to Form I and Form II submissions. By examining significant merger cases such as the Sun Pharma-Ranbaxy transaction, the Holcim-Lafarge merger, and the PVR-INOX alliance, the paper underscores the implementation of competition principles including market definition, concentration levels, countervailing buyer power, and entry barriers.

The article also conducts a comparative study with the merger frameworks of the European Union and the United States, emphasizing similarities and differences to showcase India’s distinctive method. In summary, the Indian merger control system is steadily evolving, with the CCI contributing notably to promoting a fair and competitive marketplace. Nevertheless, considering the swift expansion of the digital economy and intricate deal structures, the regulatory framework needs to adapt constantly to remain pertinent and efficient.

Keywords:

Merger Control, Competition Commission of India (CCI), Competition Act 2002, Combinations, Antitrust, Green Channel, AAEC, Form I and II, Market Concentration, Cross-Border Mergers, Digital Markets, Companies Act 2013.

 Introduction

Merger supervision is a crucial component of competition legislation, designed to oversee business consolidations to avoid anti-competitive market formations. The process of mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations is a vital aspect of business expansion, enabling companies to realize economies of scale, improve operational efficiencies, and increase their market presence. Nonetheless, unregulated mergers may result in market control, fewer consumer options, price

manipulation, and unethical trade practices that undermine competition. Consequently, competition regulators globally, including India’s Competition Commission (CCI), implement merger control rules to uphold market balance and guarantee equitable competition.

India’s merger control system is mainly regulated by the Competition Act, 2002, which empowers the CCI to evaluate mergers and acquisitions (M&As) regarding their effects on competition. The Act was introduced to supplant the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act of 1969, which mainly aimed at regulating monopolies instead of promoting competition. Following the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991, the necessity for a contemporary competition law system became clear, resulting in the enactment of the Competition Act, 2002. The Act governs “combinations”—a phrase that includes mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations that surpass specific financial limits—and requires pre-merger notifications to the CCI for evaluating their competitive impacts.

Alongside the Competition Act, 2002, the Companies Act, 2013 is crucial in governing corporate restructuring, which encompasses mergers and demergers. Although the Competition Act mainly targets the avoidance of anti-competitive results, the Companies Act establishes the procedural and legal structure for mergers and amalgamations, guaranteeing adherence to corporate governance, shareholder entitlements, and financial transparency. The two regulations work together, as the CCI evaluates competition issues while the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) manages corporate restructuring processes ¹.

The Significance and Function of Merger Regulation in India

Merger regulation is essential for sustaining a fair and competitive economy. In the absence of proper regulation, corporate mergers may result in monopolies or oligopolies, which can diminish competition and negatively impact consumer interests. The main goals of merger regulation in India are:

1.Avoiding Market Concentration and Misuse of Dominance – Major mergers can result in market concentration, with a handful of leading firms holding a considerable portion of the market. This decreases competition and may lead to dominance abuse, where strong companies partake in anti-competitive behaviors like predatory pricing, exclusionary strategies, and unfair trading practices. If two significant telecom firms in India were to combine, it might create a monopoly, limiting options for consumers and possibly resulting in increased prices.

2. Guaranteeing Just Competition – A competitive market framework promotes innovation, efficiency, and enhanced services for consumers. When companies operate on an equal basis, they are motivated to enhance product quality, lower expenses, and provide superior services. Mergers that limit competition may hinder innovation and lead to increased prices, decreased quality, or diminished consumer advantages.

3. Safeguarding Consumer Rights – A primary objective of merger regulation is to protect consumer well-being. Mergers that reduce competition may result in increased prices, fewer options, and diminished service quality. By blocking these mergers, regulators make certain that consumers keep enjoying advantages from a competitive market.

4. Promoting Economic Development and Investment – An effectively managed merger control system offers clarity and transparency to companies and investors, guaranteeing that mergers are evaluated justly and Global investors and multinational companies are more inclined to participate in M&A activities in India if they are guaranteed a transparent and stable regulatory environment.

Development of Merger Regulation in India

India’s method for controlling mergers has changed considerably throughout the years. Prior to the introduction of the Competition Act, 2002, mergers and acquisitions were regulated by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act of 1969. Nonetheless, the MRTP Act was primarily ineffective in addressing contemporary competition issues since it emphasized limiting monopolies instead of fostering competition. The requirement for a new competition law emerged following India’s economic liberalization in 1991. Due to globalization and rising foreign investment, a contemporary regulatory system was necessary to guarantee equitable competition while fostering business development. This resulted in the implementation of the Competition Act, 2002, which established a thorough framework for overseeing mergers, acquisitions, and issues related to competition.

The Act was implemented gradually:

• 2003-2009: The founding of the Competition Commission of India (CCI).
• 2009: Regulations concerning anti-competitive contracts and dominance abuse were
• 2011: Provisions for merger control outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were
• Since 2011, the CCI has thoroughly examined mergers to avert anti-competitive results, thereby strengthening India’s competition law framework.

Background of the topic

In the current dynamic and ever-globalized economy, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) have emerged as a prevalent tactic for businesses to broaden their market share, diversify their portfolios, enhance efficiencies, and acquire competitive edges. Although M&A activity can promote economic growth and foster innovation, uncontrolled consolidation of market power may inhibit competition, establish monopolistic frameworks, and negatively impact consumer welfare. This careful equilibrium between fostering business expansion and protecting market competition is central to merger control regulations in various jurisdictions. In India, this responsibility is given to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which functions within the guidelines of the Competition Act, 2002.

The idea of merger control pertains to the legal structure that enables regulatory bodies to examine, authorize, or block business consolidations according to their possible effects on market competition. It is fundamentally a preventive tool that enables antitrust authorities to evaluate if a suggested merger or acquisition is expected to lead to an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) in the pertinent market. In contrast to ex-post mechanisms that respond to anti-competitive behavior after it happens, merger control is ex-ante, necessitating prior authorization for specific transactions before they take place.

India’s transition to a modern competition law framework started with the move from the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) to the Competition Act, 2002. The MRTP Act was deemed obsolete and insufficient for addressing the intricacies of liberalized and privatized markets. The Competition Act represented a notable shift by establishing a forward- looking and economically based method for overseeing competition. Nonetheless, even though the Act was established in 2002, the rules concerning merger control were implemented only in *June 2011, when the Competition Commission of India (Procedure Regarding the Transaction of Business Relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011 — often called the Combination Regulations — were announced.

The Indian merger control framework encompasses various transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations, collectively termed as combinations in the Act. If the assets or revenue of the parties involved exceed certain thresholds — either in India or internationally — they must inform the CCI and obtain its approval prior to finalizing the agreement. These thresholds are assessed regularly and represent India’s changing economic environment. Significantly, the Green Channel route, implemented in 2019, facilitates automatic approval of specific combinations that are unlikely to heighten competition issues, simplifying the procedure for untroublesome agreements.

Since its establishment, the CCI has been instrumental in influencing the Indian merger control framework via its developing decisions, guidance documents, and revisions to the Combination Regulations. It has created analytical instruments to identify pertinent markets, evaluate competitive limitations, and investigate topics such as market concentration, vertical integration, and potential exclusion. The CCI has also incorporated global best practices while customizing its strategy to the particular requirements of the Indian economy.

Alongside the Competition Act, the Companies Act, 2013 regulates the procedural elements of mergers and restructuring. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is responsible for approving schemes of arrangement and amalgamation in accordance with corporate law. Although the CCI emphasizes competition matters, proper collaboration among various regulators is essential for ensuring comprehensive assessment of transactions. As India becomes one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, M&A activities — both domestic and international — are expected to increase. This emphasizes the need for the merger control framework to stay strong, clear, and flexible. Grasping the regulatory foundations and the function of the CCI in this process is therefore vital for companies, legal experts, and policymakers ².

Legal Framework Governing Merger Control in India

Merger regulation is an essential component of competition law that guarantees corporate consolidations do not create anti-competitive market frameworks. In India, the regulation of mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations is mainly governed by two important laws:

1.The Competition Act, 2002 – Implemented by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), this Act regulates the evaluation of mergers to ensure they do not lead to an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC).

2. The Companies Act, 2013 – Governed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), this Act establishes the procedural guidelines for mergers, encompassing shareholder approvals, corporate governance, and restructuring mandates.

Fundamentally, an effective merger control system involves not only preventing detrimental mergers but also fostering a predictable, efficient, and pro-competitive atmosphere that supports responsible expansion. With India’s rise as a significant economic center, it is essential that market frameworks stay inclusive, competitive, and conducive to innovation, which should form the foundation of merger regulation.

Thus, while recognizing the advancements achieved in the last ten years, it is essential for policymakers, the judiciary, legal experts, and the business community to collaborate in ensuring the future viability of India’s merger control system. This will not only boost investor confidence but also sustain the broader objectives of consumer welfare, economic democracy, and enduring national competitiveness.

The legal framework for merger control in India is primarily governed by the Competition Act, 2002, supported by various regulations, rules, and guidance documents issued by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). In addition, certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and sector- specific regulations also have an indirect impact on the procedural and regulatory aspects of mergers and acquisitions. Below is an overview of the key components:

1. Competition Act, 2002

The Competition Act, 2002 is the central legislation governing competition law in India. It replaced the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act) and introduced a modern regulatory framework based on principles of market economics and consumer welfare. The Act aims to prevent practices that have an Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition (AAEC) in India.

Key Provisions Relevant to Merger Control:

• Section 5 – Combinations: Defines what constitutes a “combination”, including mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamations, based on asset and turnover thresholds. The thresholds are revised periodically by the government.
• Section 6 – Regulation of Combinations: Prohibits any person or enterprise from entering

into a combination that causes or is likely to cause an AAEC in the relevant market in India. It mandates pre-merger notification to the CCI for combinations that cross prescribed thresholds.

• Section 29–31 – Investigation and Approval Process: Details the procedure for investigation (Phase I and Phase II), evaluation of combinations, and possible outcomes:
  • Approval,
  • Conditional approval (with modifications),
  • Prohibition of the
• Section 43A – Penalty for Non-Notification (Gun Jumping): Imposes penalties for failure to notify combinations prior to execution or implementation, a practice known as “gun jumping” ³.

2.Combination Regulations, 2011

Formally titled The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011, these regulations provide the detailed procedural framework for the merger control process.

Key Aspects:

• Notification Forms:

i. Form I (short form) for transactions unlikely to raise competition

ii. Form II (long form) for combinations involving significant horizontal/vertical overlaps⁴.

• Green Channel Approval Mechanism (2019 amendment): Allows deemed approval for combinations with no overlaps or risk to competition.
• Timelines: CCI is required to form a prima facie opinion within 30 working days (extendable), with an overall time limit of 210 days from the date of notification.
• Modifications and Remedies: Allows parties to offer voluntary modifications to address CCI concerns.

3.  Companies Act, 2013

While the Competition Act governs the substantive assessment of combinations, the Companies Act, 2013 deals with procedural and structural aspects, especially in cases involving mergers and amalgamations.

Relevant Provisions:

• Section 230–232: Governs schemes of arrangement, mergers, and amalgamations involving companies. Approval must be obtained from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) ⁵.
• The NCLT process runs parallel to the CCI approval and both are

4.  Notifications and Exemptions

• De Minimis Exemption (2011): Combinations where the target enterprise has assets less than ₹350 crores or turnover less than ₹1,000 crores in India are exempt from notification.
• Banking and Financial Institutions: Certain combinations involving financial institutions, SEBI-registered FIIs, and banks in ordinary course of business are also exempt under specific conditions ⁶.

5.  Judicial Oversight

Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies such as the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and the Supreme Court of India play a significant role in:

• Reviewing CCI decisions,
• Interpreting competition law provisions,
• Ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural

6. International Coordination

Under Section 18 of the Competition Act, the CCI may enter into MOUs and coordinate with foreign regulators for cross-border merger assessments. This is increasingly relevant in today’s global merger transactions involving multinational corporations.

The legal structure for merger regulation in India showcases a balanced methodology — promoting business mergers that stimulate economic development, while protecting markets from anti- competitive monopolies. The CCI’s authority, based on a solid legal and regulatory foundation, is additionally reinforced by court interpretations and global best practices. Nonetheless, continuous reforms and updates are crucial to stay pertinent in a rapidly changing economic and technological landscape.

Judicial Position on the Matter

The Indian judiciary has been crucial in defining the extent, boundaries, and enforcement of merger control as outlined in the Competition Act, 2002. While the Competition Commission of India (CCI) serves as the main body for overseeing mergers and acquisitions, judicial involvement, chiefly via the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) (now incorporated into the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal – NCLAT) and the Supreme Court of India, has greatly influenced the understanding and implementation of the merger control framework.

CCI vs. SAIL & Another ⁷ – This significant Supreme Court ruling established the basis for the procedural independence and power of the CCI in competition issues, such as merger control. Although the case didn’t explicitly relate to a merger, the Court specified that the CCI possesses the authority to independently examine and act on anti-competitive behavior without needing prior consent from the Central Government. This ruling confirmed the Commission’s position as an autonomous quasi-judicial entity and highlighted its active regulatory function.

Thomas Cook (India) Pvt Ltd / Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Pvt Ltd (2014) ⁸ – In this instance, the CCI analyzed the horizontal intersection in the operations of the merging parties. The Commission determined that, even in cases of overlap, a merger may be permitted if it does not lead to a significant negative impact on competition (AAEC). The ruling established a structure for assessing market shares, possible entry obstacles, and opposing buyer influence, and is often referenced in later cases.

Sun Pharma / Ranbaxy Labs (2015) ⁹– This is one of the most significant merger control cases where the CCI sanctioned the combination with conditions for structural changes, including the divestiture of overlapping products to avert AAEC. The case emphasized the Commission’s authority to set conditions and safeguard competition when giving approval for mergers. It also indicated that non-structural solutions (such as behavioral commitments) might not always be adequate.

Holcim Ltd / Lafarge SA (2015) ¹⁰– A case of global importance, the consolidation of two leading cement producers sparked worries about market concentration in India. The CCI authorized the agreement after both sides consented to sell off major assets in competing markets. The situation illustrated the use of international merger analysis methods, such as market definition, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), and the CCI’s readiness to perform thorough Phase II examinations.

UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. CCI (2020) ¹¹ – In this instance, the NCLAT ruled that gun-jumping — moving forward with a merger without awaiting CCI’s consent — might incur penalties despite the lack of intent to breach the law. This highlighted the strict liability aspect of gun-jumping rules under Section 43A of the Competition Act and emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to the standstill requirement.

Judicial Trends and Interpretations

• Substantive Evaluation: Courts have typically relied on the CCI’s economic knowledge when evaluating AAEC. Nevertheless, they guarantee that the choices are founded on rational directives and adhere to the tenets of natural justice.
• Due Process and Procedural Protections: Judicial officials have stressed the importance of equity in the CCI’s processes, encompassing timelines, notifications, chances to reply, and transparency in conditional approvals.
• Collaboration with Other Authorities: Indian judiciary has recognized the supportive functions of CCI, SEBI, and NCLT, particularly in merger plans under the Companies They have consistently determined that obtaining merger approval from NCLT is separate from the antitrust examination by CCI.
• Compliance and Enforcement: Judicial bodies have endorsed the CCI’s strategy in guaranteeing compliance after mergers and have maintained penalties for failing to adhere to conditions set during merger approvals.

Judicial rulings have enhanced the transparency, accountability, and legitimacy of the Indian merger control framework. Although the judiciary has primarily permitted the CCI to utilize its specialized judgment, it has also intervened to uphold procedural strictness and legal consistency. With India experiencing a rise in merger activity, particularly in digital and cross-border sectors, the significance of judicial interpretation in establishing a balanced, pro-competition merger framework will continue to expand.

Proposed Modifications / Recommendations

As India’s economy increasingly liberalizes and globalizes, the merger control system needs to adapt to align with evolving market conditions, particularly due to the rise of digital platforms, international investments, and intricate deal formations. Although the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has achieved significant advancements in enhancing merger control enforcement, notable challenges remain in both substantive and procedural dimensions. To improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of the system, the following reforms and suggestions are recommended:

1.Threshold Revision and Sector-Specific Criteria – The existing notification limits for combinations under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 are mainly determined by assets and revenue. Nonetheless, these standards might not sufficiently reflect the importance of transactions in the digital economy, where businesses can have minimal revenue yet substantial market influence because of data ownership or user demographics (e.g., startups). India might explore implementing a “transaction value threshold,” akin to the approaches in Germany and Austria, to guarantee that significant mergers are not overlooked by CCI oversight due to minimal revenue numbers.

2. Strengthening the Green Channel Mechanism –The launch of the Green Channel route in 2019 represented a forward-thinking advancement, enabling automatic consent for non- problematic mergers lacking horizontal, vertical, or complementary Nonetheless, explicit guidelines and checklists ought to be provided by the CCI to assist parties in self- evaluating their eligibility. Furthermore, a retrospective audit system could be established to guarantee that no significant information was inaccurately presented during the filing process.

3. Strengthening Capabilities and Application of Technology – Due to the growing volume and complexity of mergers, the CCI should invest in AI solutions, data analysis, and economic modeling methods to improve the quality and efficiency of merger Moreover, ongoing skills development and training of personnel, especially in new domains such as digital markets, innovation evaluation, and vertical mergers, will aid in managing complex transactions.

4. Shortening Approval Timelines and Improving Pre-Filing Support – Even though the CCI adheres to a 30-day schedule for Phase I evaluations, real-world delays frequently arise from back-and-forth inquiries or extensive paperwork. A strong and easy-to-use online submission platform, along with enhanced pre-filing advisory services, can minimize doubts and assist parties in submitting comprehensive applications from the start. Additionally, a streamlined process for purely intra-group mergers or foreign-to-foreign combinations without Indian implications could be established to lessen regulatory strain¹².

6. Enhancing Monitoring After Approval – When the CCI consents to a merger with alterations (like divestitures or behavioral remedies), compliance monitoring systems must be more clear and The Commission ought to issue regular conformity reports and think about designating external oversight trustees, similar to practices in the EU, to confirm the genuine execution of stipulations.

7. Improved Collaboration with Sectoral Regulators – The overlap with other regulators (such as SEBI, RBI, IRDAI, and NCLT) frequently leads to regulatory friction and postponements in the overall merger process. A formal inter-agency cooperation framework is necessary to define the roles of regulators and allow simultaneous processing of approvals without overlap or conflict ¹³.

The Indian merger control system, overseen by the Competition Commission of India, has developed into a strong structure aimed at reconciling the dual goals of economic development and market competition. Over ten years of regulatory experience, India has built considerable jurisprudence and institutional capability in this field. Nonetheless, the swift growth of emerging sectors, digital marketplaces, and the globalization of transactions necessitates ongoing legal, procedural, and technological advancement of the merger control framework. The suggested measures mentioned earlier seek to improve regulatory certainty, lower compliance expenses, and guarantee that anticompetitive mergers do not avoid examination because of obsolete thresholds or procedural gaps. Through strategic reforms, India can bolster its status as a pro-investment while being sensitive to competition, thus promoting a fair, efficient, and innovation-focused market economy.

Conclusion

The evolution of merger regulation in India signifies a notable advancement in creating an equitable and competitive market framework that harmonizes the aspirations of expanding businesses with the interests of consumers and smaller market participants. Following the implementation of the merger control regulations under the Competition Act, 2002 in 2011, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has taken an active role in establishing a trustworthy, transparent, and progressive regulatory environment. By utilizing a combination of legal examination, economic assessment, and policy measures, the CCI has sought to avert market distortions that may result from anti-competitive mergers.

Nevertheless, the rapidly evolving landscape of global markets — particularly due to the rise of digital platforms, data-centric business approaches, and international investments — has introduced new challenges that the existing Indian merger control system needs to tackle. Conventional metrics like asset size or turnover are now inadequate for assessing the true competitive effect of a transaction. The emergence of “killer acquisitions” — in which major tech firms buy up-and-coming rivals before they become a potential danger — illustrates why qualitative aspects, like innovation potential, consumer data availability, and network effects, need to be included in merger evaluations.

In addition, although the implementation of tools like the Green Channel and changes to the Combination Regulations demonstrate the regulator’s awareness of real business needs, more clarity and predictability are necessary. Compliance challenges and delays in intricate approvals continue to exist, and involved parties frequently encounter legal ambiguity, particularly in cross- sector transactions. The lack of coordination between the CCI and sectoral regulators like SEBI, RBI, and NCLT occasionally results in differing interpretations and overlapping procedures, which weaken the overall system’s efficiency.

To tackle these problems, a more interactive and cooperative method is necessary. The merger control framework should progress towards better alignment with global standards, while remaining attuned to the Indian economic environment. This involves establishing deal value limits, applying risk-based regulatory exceptions, and creating sector-specific recommendations for emerging sectors such as fintech, e-commerce, healthcare, and digital platforms. On the enforcement front, it is crucial to make certain that the remedies mandated by the CCI are reasonable, timely, and efficiently overseen. The appointment of oversight trustees and regular compliance assessments, especially in situations requiring structural remedies, can greatly enhance the credibility and deterrent effect of the regulatory system ¹⁴.

Essentially, a developed merger control system focuses not only on preventing detrimental mergers but also on fostering a predictable, efficient, and pro-competitive atmosphere that promotes responsible expansion. With India’s rise as a significant economic center, maintaining inclusive, competitive, and innovation-promoting market structures should form the foundation of merger regulation. Consequently, while recognizing the advancements achieved in the last ten years, it is vital for policymakers, the judiciary, legal practitioners, and the business sector to collaborate in strengthening India’s merger control framework for the future. This will not just enhance investor confidence but also support the broader objectives of consumer welfare, economic democracy, and sustained national competitiveness ¹⁵.

Notes: 

¹ U. Sankar, Merger Control in India: Recent Developments, 5 J. Indian L. & Society 23 (2014).

² Manoj Parameswaran, Merger Control in India: Law and Practice (LexisNexis 2018).

³ The Competition Act, 2002

⁴ The Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011

⁵ The Companies Act, 2013

⁶ CCI Notification on De Minimis Exemption (S.O. 988(E), March 2011 and revised notifications)

⁷ CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. MANU/SC/0690/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 744

⁸ Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. / Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., Combination Registration No. C-2014/02/155, CCI Order (Mar. 14, 2014).

⁹ Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. / Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Combination Registration No. C-2014/05/170,   CCI Order (Mar. 5, 2015).

¹⁰ Holcim Ltd. / Lafarge S.A., Combination Registration No. C-2014/07/190, CCI Order (Apr. 1, 2015).

¹¹ UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India. MANU/SC/1062/2022

¹² OECD Report on Merger Control

¹³ Competition Law Review Committee (CLRC) Report, 2019

¹⁴ Tarun Jain, Evolution of the CCI’s Merger Control Jurisprudence, India Corp Law

¹⁵ CCI Notification on Green Channel Route (2019)

[1]Rishabh Kumar, 3^rd year, BBALLB (Corporate law), University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun