Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 APRIL 2013

Competition Law Update - 11th April 2013

JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Contributor
JSA Advocates & Solicitors

JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Established in 1991 Our services: JSA is a leading law firm in India with more than 600...

View firm profile
Explore more from JSA Advocates & Solicitors

A discussion on the topic of merger control in India.

IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Amit Kapur
Amit Kapur
Author LinkedIn connections

Further amendment of Combination Regulations

1. The Competition Commission of India has further amended the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011 ("Combination Regulations").

2. The changes have been made to Schedule 1 of the Combination Regulations (being the transactions for which filings need not normally be made) and are highlighted as follows:

(a) Addition of Para 1(A) - No filing required in case of acquisitions of additional shares/ voting rights of an enterprise, not resulting in gross acquisition of more than 5% of the shares/voting rights in a financial year; where before or after such acquisition, the acquirer (along with its group) already holds 25% shares/voting rights of such enterprise, but does not hold 50% or more.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

An Update On India’s Proposed Digital Competition Law

India’s proposed Digital Competition Law has evolved through several stages, from the 2022 Parliamentary Committee report and the 2024 Committee on Digital Competition Law’s draft Bill, through a 2025 government reconsideration, to renewed Parliamentary backing for an ex-ante framework in August 2026. Drawing on comparative experience from the EU, UK, and Japan, this article argues that legislative reform must be matched by a strengthened Competition Commission of India if ex-ante regulation is to work in practice.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Corporate Professionals - Advisors & Advocates
Article

Competition Law Updates August 2026

On 13 July 2026, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed penalties exceeding ₹142 crore on HP India and several reselers under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) for cartelisation and bid rigging in the sale and supply of HP personal system products, including laptops, desktops, workstations and accessories (Computers Case), and ink and toner cartridges (Cartridges Case). The orders arose from lesser penalty applications filed by HP India under Section 46 of the Competition Act read with the CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
King, Stubb & Kasiva
King, Stubb & Kasiva
Article

Adjudication Or Legislation? Google's Play Store Battle Before The CCI And The Future Of Digital Competition Law In India

As the world evolves, every economy is now making progress towards becoming a technology-driven economy and there is an ongoing debate to bring specific changes to the competition law for a technology-driven economy. The prevailing view, however, is that the existing Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) already reaches several technology-based claims, and major jurisdictions have stretched their competition statutes to cover platform conduct rather than wait for bespoke digital-market legislation.
IndiaAntitrust/Competition Law
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

The Supreme Court Of India Clarifies: Order II Rule 2 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(D) Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

A two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in S. Valliammai and Ors. vs. S. Ramanathan and Anr. recently held that Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between the two provisions clarifying that while Order II Rule 2 curtails the right to sue for certain claims or reliefs, but it does not bar filing of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies That Compromise Decrees Asserting Pre-existing Rights Are Not Subject To Registration Or Payment Of Stamp Duty

In the recent case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the issue of whether compromise decrees that assert pre-existing rights necessitate registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and are subject to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Services Sector Employment Rules Take Shape: Model Standing Orders, 2026 Under The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

On May 8, 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Model Standing Orders, 2026 (“Model Standing Orders 2026”) under Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”). The notification supersedes the earlier Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 insofar as they related to model standing orders, and prescribes separate model standing orders for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors.
IndiaEmployment and HR
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors