Notice given by Mr. Ajay Singh
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission of India approved a proposed combination involving the transfer of 58.46% of SpiceJet Limited's shares to a new acquirer. The Commission found no horizontal or vertical overlaps that would cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition.
What did the court decide?
The proposed combination involving the transfer of SpiceJet shares is approved under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
What the court decided
Fair Competition For Greater Good
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
(Combination Registration No. C-2015/02/245)
19.02.2015
Notice u/s 6 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 given by:
- Mr. Ajay Singh
Order under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
- On 9th February 2015, the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “ Commission ”) received a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“ Act ”) filed by Mr. Ajay Singh (“ Acquirer ”). The said notice was given to the Commission pursuant to the approval by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of a scheme of reconstruction and revival for takeover of the ownership, management and control of SpiceJet Limited (“ SpiceJet ”) and execution of the Share Sale and Purchase Agreement between the Acquirer, SpiceJet and the two promoters of SpiceJet, namely, KAL Airways Private Limited and Mr. Kalanithi Maran (hereinafter KAL Airways Private Limited and Mr. Kalanithi Maran are collectively referred to as “ Sellers ”), dated 29th January 2015 (“ SPA ”).
- The proposed combination involves sale and transfer of equity shares aggregating to 58.46 percent of the share capital of SpiceJet by the Sellers to the Acquirer.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the proposed share transfer between SpiceJet Limited and the Acquirer results in an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.
Whether the Competition Commission of India may approve the proposed combination under the relevant provisions of the Competition Act, 2002.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court