that a request for pre-filing consultation could be made to the officials of the Commission to understand the filing requirement, within the scope of the law, in context of the facts and circumstances of the present case and nature of the proposed combination. It seems, however, that notwithstanding the legal advice, Temasek did not comply with the regulatory mandate within the time limit as provided under the Act, with respect to the proposed combination. All the above factors signify that the Acquirers did not show any sense of urgency or seriousness on the issue of regulatory compliance pertaining to the Indian Competition Law and were slow in response to the advice of their counsels at different points of time. On going through the above relevant e-mails, it also appears that there was a piecemeal exchange of information between the Acquirers and their counsels and that too with no communication between them during the period May 2012 to December 2012, adding to the delay on the part of the Acquirers in giving the notice under subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Act. The Commission also observes that Temasek and DBSH have been operating in India, inter-alia in the banking and financial sectors, for a reasonably long time and, therefore, they are not new to the prevalent Indian regulatory provisions and requirements. Further, it is also observed as regards the plea of the Acquirers that no part of the proposed combination had so far been consummated that, as per the terms of the SPA, the Acquirers could not in any case have consummated the proposed combination, as the same was to be done along with the primary acquisition of Asia Financial (Indonesia) Pte. Ltd, which in turn held approximately 67.37 per cent of the equity share capital of an Indonesian Bank, PT Bank Danamon Indonesia Tbk, by DBSH. As observed above, an earlier transaction in July 2011 involving a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Temasek was also not notified to the Commission under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act.
