Bharti Airtel Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission of India approved Bharti Airtel Limited's combination to increase its shareholding in Indus Towers to 50.005% following a share buyback. The Commission found no appreciable adverse effect on competition.
What did the court decide?
Approval of the combination under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Combination Registration No. C-2024/08/1173
22nd October 2024
Notice under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 given by Bharti Airtel Limited
CORAM:
Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson Mr. Anil Agrawal Member Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member
Mr. Deepak Anurag Member
Order under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
- On 13th August 2024, the Competition Commission of India ( Commission ) received a notice ( Notice ) under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002 ( Act ) given by Bharti Airtel Limited ( Bharti Airtel ) . The Notice was given pursuant to a board resolution dated 30th July 2024 of Bharti Airtel.
- Bharti Airtel, vide communications dated 27th August 2024 and 20th September 2024 issued under Regulation 14 of the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011 ( Combination Regulations ), was required to remove defects from the Notice and furnish certain information relevant for the purpose of assessment of the combination.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the increase in Bharti Airtel's shareholding in Indus Towers from 48.95% to 50.005% via share buyback is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.
Whether the proposed combination involves foreclosure risks or preferential treatment for the applicant in the passive telecom infrastructure market.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bharti Airtel Limited
Coram
Ravneet Kaur
Anil Agrawal
Sweta Kakkad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court