Bharti Airtel Limited, Gurgaon, India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission assessed whether a 'notional appointed date' clause in the Airtel-Tata Teleservices acquisition agreement violated standstill obligations. Finding the clause potentially distorted competition by reducing the target's incentive to compete, the Commission held it constituted contravention and imposed a penalty.
What did the court decide?
A penalty of INR 10,00,000/- imposed on Bharti Airtel Limited to be paid within 60 days.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (Combination Registration No. C-2017/10/531)
27.08.2018
Fair Competition For Greater Good
Notice given under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 by Bharti Airtel Limited: Combination Regn. No. C-2017/10/531
CORAM:
Mr. Sudhir Mital Chairperson Mr. Augustine Peter Member Mr. U. C. Nahta Member Mr. G. P. Mittal Member
Appearances during Oral hearing on 24.07.2018 for Bharti Airtel Limited:
Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate, Ms Aditi Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, Mr. Aakarsh Narula, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Bahl, Advocate, Mr. Avinash Amarnath, Advocate, Mr. Sameer Chugh and Ms Nitya, Legal Counsels, Bharti Airtel Limited
Order under Section 43A of the Competition Act, 2002
A. Background
- On 16.10.2017, the Competition Commission of India (“ Commission ”) received a notice under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“ Act ”), given by Bharti Airtel Limited (“ Airtel ”) relating to proposed acquisition of 100 percent of the consumer mobile business run by Tata Teleservices Limited (“ TTSL ”) and Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a contractual clause allowing operational control from a notional date prior to Commission approval constitutes a contravention of standstill obligations under Section 6(2A) of the Competition
Whether agreeing to such a clause amounts to gun-jumping even without actual payment or exchange of information.
Whether the appropriate penalty for the failure to file a combined notice in accordance with the Act should be imposed.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bharti Airtel Limited
Coram
Mr. Sudhir Mital
Mr. Augustine Peter
Mr. U. C. Nahta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · November
- Case no.
- C-2017/10/531
- Topic
- Consumer Protection
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1
- Order 2 — this page
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court