Restraints of trade and dominance in India: overview

A Q&A guide to restraints of trade and dominance in India.

The Q&A gives a succinct overview of restraints of trade, monopolies and abuses of market power in India. In particular, it covers the regulatory authorities and the regulatory framework, the scope of rules, exemptions, exclusions, statutes of limitation, notification, investigations, penalties and enforcement, third party damages claims, EU law, joint ventures and proposals for reform.

For information on merger control, regulatory framework and regulatory authorities, relevant triggering events and thresholds in India, visit Merger control in India: overview.

This Q&A is part of the global guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Restraints of Trade and Dominance Q&As visit For a full list of jurisdictional Merger Control Q&As visit

For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit


Restraints of trade

Scope of rules

1. Are restrictive agreements and practices regulated? If so, what are the substantive provisions and regulatory authority?

Regulatory framework

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is the statutory authority that regulates anti-competitive agreements and practices in the market. Section 3 of the Competition Act 2002 (Competition Act) provides that an agreement in relation to the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or the provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) within India is void.

Substantive provisions

The Competition Act specifically deals with two types of agreements under section 3:

  • Horizontal agreements. Any agreement between entities engaged in an identical or similar trade in goods or services is presumed to cause an AAEC if it:

    • directly or indirectly determines purchase or sale prices;

    • limits or controls production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or the provision of services;

    • shares the market or source of production or provision of services by way of allocation of the geographical area of the market, type of goods or services, or number of customers in the market or in any other similar way; or

    • directly or indirectly results in bid rigging or collusive bidding.

    However, this presumption does not apply to efficiency enhancing joint ventures.

  • Vertical agreements. Vertical agreements are agreements between enterprises that operate at different stages of the production chain, including tie-in-agreements, exclusive supply agreements, exclusive distribution agreements, refusals to deal and resale price maintenance. These agreements are void only if they cause or are likely to cause an AAEC in India. Therefore, these agreements are subject to a rule of reason analysis by the CCI, which will consider various factors, including:

    • creation of barriers to entry;

    • driving existing competitors out of the market;

    • foreclosure of competition;

    • accrual of benefits to consumers;

    • improvements in the production/distribution and promotion of technical, scientific and economic development.

    In one of its decisions, the CCI clarified that there can be agreements that do not qualify as horizontal or vertical agreements, but may still be caught by the general prohibition under section 3(1). This decision was overturned by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). However, the CCI has challenged the COMPAT order before the Supreme Court.

Regulatory authority

The CCI is the relevant statutory authority created under the Competition Act that regulates anti-competitive agreements in India. The CCI uses the office of the Director General, its investigative arm, to conduct investigations.

Under certain sectoral legislation, such as the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, the Electricity Act and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, there is a concurrent power to regulate competition-related matters. The issue of overlapping jurisdiction between the sectoral regulators and the CCI is a contested one and is currently the subject of proceedings before the High Court.

2. Do the regulations only apply to formal agreements or can they apply to informal practices?

The Competition Act defines an agreement broadly to include an arrangement, understanding or action in concert, irrespective of whether it is formal, in writing or intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings. Therefore, the Competition Act is equally applicable to formal, informal or implied agreements.



3. Are there any exemptions? If so, what are the criteria for individual exemption and any applicable block exemptions?

The Competition Act does not grant any specific exemption to any kind of agreement. However, section 54 of the Competition Act empowers the Central Government to exempt the application of the Competition Act 2002 (or any of its provisions) for the period it specifies in its notification in relation to any of the following:

  • Any class of enterprise, if it is in the interests of national security or public interest.

  • Any practice or agreement relating to India's international obligations.

  • Any enterprise that performs a sovereign function such as functions relating to atomic energy, currency, defence and space.

There is no provision for block exemptions under the Competition Act.


Exclusions and statutes of limitation

4. Are there any exclusions? Are there statutes of limitation associated with restrictive agreements and practices?


The Competition Act carves out an exception from the applicability of provisions relating to anti-competitive agreements to protect the rights of any person to restrain any infringement of, or to impose reasonable conditions, for protecting any of his rights under the:

  • Copyright Act 1957.

  • Patents Act 1970.

  • Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 or the Trade Marks Act 1999.

  • Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.

  • Designs Act 2000.

  • Semi-conductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000.

The Competition Act also provides that nothing in section 3 is to restrict the right of any person to export goods from India, to the extent the agreement relates exclusively to the production, supply, distribution or control of goods or the provision of services for export.

Statutes of limitation

The Competition Act does not specify any particular period of limitation. However, the Limitation Act 1963 is applicable to all matters before the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Appellate Tribunal.



5. What are the notification requirements for restrictive agreements and practices?


The Competition Act does not have a provision for notification of restrictive agreements and practices to the Competition Commission of India (CCI). There is no procedure for obtaining an individual exemption or other clearance.

Informal guidance/opinion

The Competition Act does not provide for informal guidance regarding restrictive agreements or practices.

Responsibility for notification

The CCI can look into contravention of section 3 of the Competition Act on:

  • Its own motion.

  • An information (complaint) filed by any person, consumer or their association or trade association.

  • A reference made by the central government or a state government or a statutory authority.

Relevant authority

The CCI is the relevant authority before which an information (complaint) can be filed.

Form of notification

The CCI has prescribed a format for the filing an information (complaint) by any person, consumer or association. This format can be accessed and downloaded from the CCI's website (see

Filing fee

The Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (General Regulations) prescribe the following fees for filing an information:

  • INR5000, in the case of:

    • an individual ;

    • a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF);

    • a non-governmental organisation (NGO);

    • a consumer association;

    • a co-operative society; or

    • a trust.

  • INR20,000, in the case of a firm or company having a turnover in the preceding year up to INR1 crore.

  • INR50,000, for all other cases.



6. Who can start an investigation into a restrictive agreement or practice?


The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can initiate an investigation on its own motion or conduct an investigation on receipt of a reference from the central government, a state government or any statutory authority (see Question 5).

Third parties

Any person, consumer or association can file an information (complaint) with the CCI. After the receipt of an information, the CCI must either pass an order initiating an investigation or close the case (see Questions 5 and 7).

7. What rights (if any) does a complainant or other third party have to make representations, access documents or be heard during the course of an investigation?


Informant. An informant/complainant can make oral or written submissions or file written arguments during the course of an investigation. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), at its discretion, can ask the informant to attend a preliminary conference to decide if there is a prima facie case.

The informant can also file and present its objections to the Director General's (DG) report if the DG does not find a contravention of the Competition Act by the opposite party.

Third parties. The CCI can add any person/enterprise as a party to the proceedings on a written request made by any party to the proceedings if that third party has either:

  • Claimed a right to relief for the same act or transaction, or series of acts or transactions.

  • Shown an interest in common with the complainant.

The CCI can add any person/enterprise as a party if it is of the opinion that the participation of the third party is necessary for the determination of the issues.

The CCI can also allow a third party to participate in further proceedings and present its opinion on a particular matter if the third party has demonstrated a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, or if it is in the public interest.

Document access

Informant. The parties to a case can inspect the file or obtain copies of documents or records submitted during the proceedings on payment of a fee and submitting an application in writing to the Secretary of the CCI.

Third parties. Anyone who is not a party to the proceedings of a case can, on demonstrating sufficient cause before the CCI, be allowed to inspect the documents or records of the proceedings.

Be heard

See above, Representations.

8. What are the stages of the investigation and timetable?

A case before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) progresses in the following phased manner:

  • Formation of a prima facie opinion. If the CCI is of the opinion that there is a prima facie case, it directs the Director General (DG) to start an investigation into the matter. In the absence of a prima facie case, the CCI must close the case at this stage.

  • The DG's investigation. When the DG receives the direction, it must conduct the investigation within 60 days and submit a report containing its findings on the allegations to the CCI. However, the CCI has discretion to extend the time for submission of the DG's report. The CCI can forward the report to the parties concerned, and, if there is a reference by a statutory authority, the CCI must forward the report to that authority.

  • Findings of the DG. If the DG recommends there has been no contravention, the CCI must invite the parties concerned or the referring authority to make objections or suggestions. If the CCI agrees with the recommendation of the DG, it must immediately close the matter. However, if the CCI is of the opinion that further investigation is required, it can order the DG to conduct further investigation on specific issues and to submit a supplementary report within 45 days. Conversely, if the DG recommends that there has been a contravention, and the CCI is of the opinion that further inquiry is called for, the CCI will itself inquire into the contravention.

  • Inquiry and final order by the CCI. The parties concerned, or the referring authority, are first given an opportunity to respond to the DG's findings. After conducting an oral hearing in the matter, the CCI must, as far as practicable, make an order within 21 days of the date of final arguments. However, this is rarely applicable in practice, and often takes far longer. Where an interim order is made by the CCI, the final order must be passed within 90 days of the interim order.


Publicity and confidentiality

9. How much information is made publicly available concerning investigations into potentially restrictive agreements or practices? Is any information made automatically confidential and is confidentiality available on request?


Information, documents and oral hearings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) are not public.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) generally publishes its prima facie orders, which contain details including the names of the parties involved, in all cases, except cartel cases. The CCI also publishes all its final orders on its website (see box, The regulatory authority).

Automatic confidentiality

As a general rule, no information relating to any enterprise can be disclosed without the previous written permission of the enterprise concerned (section 57, Competition Act). However, this does not apply to information disclosed in compliance with, or for the purposes of, the Competition Act (or any other law in force). Parties must therefore request confidential treatment.

Confidentiality on request

The parties can specifically request for some parts and/or certain documents to be confidential (regulation 35, General Regulations). If such a request is granted, the documents or information is not open to inspection by the other party or any other person.

10. What are the powers (if any) that the relevant regulator has to investigate potentially restrictive agreements or practices?

For the purpose of the inquiry, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Director General (DG) have various powers of a civil court, which include:

  • Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath.

  • Requiring the discovery and production of documents.

  • Receiving affidavit evidence.

  • Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.

  • Requisitioning any public record or document, or copy of a public record or document from any office (subject to sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, dealing with issues of privilege).

The DG has additional powers, which include:

  • Requiring any person to furnish any information, books or papers necessary for an investigation.

  • Calling for the personal attendance and examination on oath of any officer, employee or agent of a company or any other person.

  • Search and seizure powers in respect of documents relating to the company or its employees and officers (which can only be exercised on the basis of a warrant from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi).



11. Can the parties reach settlements with regulators to bring an early resolution to an investigation? If so, what are the circumstances for doing so and the applicable procedure?

There is no provision for settlement or withdrawal of complaints to bring an early resolution to an investigation. Each case must therefore be concluded in line with the statutory procedure.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) can require the parties to offer binding or informal commitments after an infringement decision is reached in the ordinary course. However, this usually does not have any bearing on the penalties imposed by the CCI.

12. Can the regulator accept remedies (commitments) from the parties to address competition concerns without reaching an infringement decision? If so, what are the circumstances for doing so and the applicable procedure?

There is no provision for accepting remedies without reaching an infringement decision under the Competition Act.


Penalties and enforcement

13. What are the regulator's enforcement powers in relation to a prohibited restrictive agreement or practice?

The competition regime in India is administrative and civil in nature. Violations of the Competition Act are punishable by fines. However, the Competition Act envisages criminal penalties for breaches of orders of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) or the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).


The CCI, on finding of an anti-competitive agreement, can pass all or any of the following orders:

  • Direct the parties involved to discontinue or not re-enter into an agreement.

  • Direct that the agreement be modified to the extent and in the manner it specifies.

  • Impose a monetary penalty.

  • Any other order, including on the payment of costs.


The CCI can impose a penalty on each party to the agreement of up to 10% of its average turnover for the previous three financial years (section 27, Competition Act).

For cartels, the CCI can impose a penalty of three times the participant's profits, or 10% of its turnover, for each year of duration of the agreement, whichever is higher.

Failure to comply

For non-payment of penalties, there is an additional fine of up to INR100,000 for each day of non-payment, subject to a cap of INR100 million. Non-payment of these fines is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of three years or a maximum fine of INR250 million, or both.

Personal liability

For violations of the Competition Act by a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company is deemed guilty of the contravention. However, that person will not be liable if he is able to prove that the contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that contravention.

If it is proved that a breach has taken place with the assistance or consent of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, that person is also liable for the breach and can be penalised by the CCI.


The CCI can impose a "lesser penalty" on a producer, seller, distributor, trader or service provider involved in a cartel, who makes a full, true and vital disclosure in relation to the alleged cartel agreement or practice before receiving the Director General's report (section 46, Competition Act).

The CCI can grant a reduction in fines up to:

  • 100% to the first applicant.

  • 50% to the second applicant.

  • 30% to the third applicant.

The CCI can also revoke a lesser penalty and re-impose the original penalty if the person concerned:

  • Fails to comply with the conditions attached to the lesser penalty.

  • Gives false evidence.

  • Stops co-operating with the CCI before the proceedings are complete.

Impact on agreements

The CCI can direct that the agreement be modified to the extent and in the manner it specifies (section 27, Competition Act).

The CCI can order the modification of the restrictive provisions in an anti-competitive agreement, if possible. However, if the restrictive provisions are not severable, the entire agreement can be declared void.


Third party damages claims and appeals

14. Can third parties claim damages for losses suffered as a result of a prohibited restrictive agreement or practice? If so, what special procedures or rules (if any) apply? Are collective/class actions possible?

Third party damages

Any person can apply to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of a breach of the Competition Act. However, they must first exhaust appeals in relation to the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) finding of contravention of the Competition Act. To date, only a few applications have been made before the COMPAT, which are yet to be decided.

Special procedures/rules

The COMPAT can regulate its own procedure, but is bound by the principles of natural justice in all of its proceedings.

Collective/class actions

Where loss or damage is caused to numerous persons that have the same interest, one or more persons can obtain permission from the COMPAT to make an application for the benefit of all these persons.

15. Is there a right of appeal against any decision of the regulator? If so, which decisions, to which body and within which time limits? Are rights of appeal available to third parties, or only to the parties to the agreement or practice?

Rights of appeal and procedure

Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can refer an appeal against an order, direction or decision of the CCI mentioned under section 53A of the Competition Act. These relate to final decisions of the CCI including, among others:

  • Penalties under section 27.

  • Case closures under section 26(2).

  • Interim relief under section 33.

  • Non-furnishing of information under section 43.

  • Leniency under section 46.

Third party rights of appeal

Any party who can show that it is aggrieved by an order of the CCI can appeal to the Competition Appellate Tribunal.


Monopolies and abuses of market power

Scope of rules

16. Are monopolies and abuses of market power regulated under administrative and/or criminal law? If so, what are the substantive provisions and regulatory authority?

Regulatory framework

Abuse of dominance is regulated under section 4 of the Competition Act.

Regulatory authority

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is the only regulatory authority empowered to deal with cases of abuse of dominance by an enterprise.

17. How is dominance/market power determined?

A dominant position is a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in a relevant market, in India, enabling it to operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or to affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour (explanation to section 4, Competition Act).

The term "relevant market" is defined as the market that can be determined by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) with reference to the "relevant product market" and/or the "relevant geographic market". Both these terms are defined in the Competition Act. Section 19 of the Competition Act sets out the factors that the CCI must consider while determining the relevant product and geographic markets.

The CCI can examine all or any of the following factors to determine whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position in the relevant market (section 19(4), Competition Act):

  • Market share of the enterprise.

  • Size and resources of the enterprise.

  • Size and importance of the competitors.

  • Economic power of the enterprise.

  • Vertical integration of the enterprises or sale or service network of the enterprises.

  • Dependence of consumers on the enterprise.

  • Whether the dominant position was acquired as a result of any statute or by virtue of being a government company or a public sector undertaking or otherwise.

  • Entry barriers.

  • Countervailing buying power.

  • Market structure and size of market.

  • Social obligations and social costs.

  • Relative advantage, in relation to its contribution to economic development.

  • Any other factor that the CCI considers relevant for the enquiry.

18. Are there any broad categories of behaviour that may constitute abusive conduct?

Section 4(2) of the Competition Act lists the conduct by a dominant enterprise that can be considered abusive. This occurs when a dominant enterprise directly or indirectly:

  • Imposes discriminatory or unfair conditions in the purchase or sale of goods or services.

  • Imposes discriminatory or unfair prices in the purchase or sale of goods or services, including predatory pricing.

  • Limits or restricts the provision of goods or services (or technical or scientific developments relating to goods or services) to the prejudice of consumers.

  • Indulges in practices that prevent market access.

  • Makes the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by other parties of supplementary obligations that have no connection with the subject matter of the contract.

  • Uses its dominant position in one market to enter into or protect other relevant markets.


Exemptions and exclusions

19. Are there any exemptions or exclusions?

The Competition Act 2002 does not provide for any specific exemptions or exclusions in cases of abuse of dominance.



20. Is it necessary (or, if not necessary, possible/advisable) to notify the conduct to obtain clearance or (formal or informal) guidance from the regulator? If so, what is the applicable procedure?

There is no provision for obtaining clearance or formal or informal guidance from the Competition Commission of India.



21. What (if any) procedural differences are there between investigations into monopolies and abuses of market power and investigations into restrictive agreements and practices?

There are no procedural differences between investigations into abuse of dominance and anti-competitive practices (see Questions 6 to 9 and 11 and 12). The Competition Commission of India's prima facie investigation orders are usually published on the CCI's website (see box, The regulatory authority).

22. What are the regulator's powers of investigation?

The regulator's powers of investigation are the same as for restrictive agreements and practices (see Question 10).


Penalties and enforcement

23. What are the penalties for abuse of market power and what orders can the regulator make?

The penalties for abuse of a dominant position are largely the same as those for engaging in restrictive practices (see Question 13). In addition, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) can pass an order against the enterprise abusing its dominant position to discontinue the abusive activity. The CCI can also order a dominant enterprise to be divided to ensure that it does not abuse its dominant position (section 28, Competition Act). This has not happened to date.


Third party damages claims

24. Can third parties claim damages for losses suffered as a result of abuse of market power? If so, what special procedures or rules (if any) apply? Are collective/class actions possible?

Third party damages

The position is the same as for restrictive agreements and practices (see Question 14).

Special procedures/rules

The position is the same as for restrictive agreements and practices (see Question 14).

Collective/class actions

The position is the same as for restrictive agreements and practices (see Question 14).


EU law

25. Are there any differences between the powers of the national regulatory authority(ies) and courts in relation to cases dealt with under Article 101 and/or Article 102 of the TFEU, and those dealt with only under national law?

Not applicable.


Joint ventures

26. How are joint ventures analysed under competition law?

There is no statutory definition of "joint ventures".

An agreement entered into by way of a joint venture is not subject to the presumption of an appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) under section 3(3) of the Competition Act where the agreement increases efficiency in the production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or the provision of services.


Inter-agency co-operation

27. Does the regulatory authority in your jurisdiction co-operate with regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions in relation to infringements of competition law? If so, what is the legal basis for and extent of co-operation (in particular, in relation to the exchange of information)?

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) entered into co-operation arrangements with the following authorities, with whom it engages on a regular basis:

  • US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice (DOJ).

  • Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service.

  • Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

  • Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada.

  • European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition.

In November 2013, the CCI entered into the Delhi Accord with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) competition agencies. It is a member of the International Competition Network (ICN) and participates regularly in its meetings and conferences.


Recent cases

28. What are the recent developments, trends or notable recent cases concerning abuse of market power?

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has issued the following important decisions on abuse of dominance in India:

  • In two different cases filed against Verifone, the CCI found it to have abused its dominant position by imposing restrictive clauses in a draft software licence agreement.

  • In an investigation against ACI Worldwide, the CCI held that it was not dominant. The CCI observed that various banks continued to use the informant's customisation and modification services in relation to banking software, despite express instructions from ACI not to do so. Further, given that changing suppliers was feasible, and that ACI's customers included some of the largest banks in the country, it was reasonable to expect that these customers may be able to exercise some countervailing buyer power on ACI.

  • GAIL, the dominant provider of re-liquified natural gas (RLNG) in India, was accused by two separate informants of abusing its dominant position by requiring the informants to purchase a specified amount of RLNG under a "take or pay" clause in the gas supply agreements. The parties had entered into long-term contracts for the supply of gas that subjected the informants to minimum purchase requirements. The CCI observed that the parties entered into the arrangements after negotiations, that GAIL offered to revise the existing contract to reduce the minimum amount of RLNG offtake and did not demand the entire amounts due to them under the contract. This conduct was considered to be reasonable and non-abusive.

  • The CCI ordered an investigation in the taxi aggregator services market in Bangalore against Ola Cabs. The Director General is currently investigating Ola Cab's allegedly predatory incentive schemes for drivers and passengers. However, the CCI closed another information filed against Ola Cab regarding the Delhi market. Similarly, the CCI closed two informations filed against Uber, which alleged abuse of dominance in the markets of Kolkata and Delhi.

In May 2015, the Competition Appellate Tribunal set aside three of the CCI's orders that found Coal India Limited to be abusing its dominant position by formulating and imposing unfair terms under fuel supply agreements with its customers. The orders were set aside on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice by the CCI. The CCI has been directed to hear the matter afresh.


Proposals for reform

29. Are there any proposals for reform concerning restrictive agreements and market dominance?

The Competition (Amendment) Bill 2012, which has now lapsed, had proposed a number of changes to the Competition Act in relation to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position. However, there are no current proposals to re-introduce a bill.


Online resources

Competition Commission of India (CCI)


Description. This is the CCI's official website, which contains relevant legislation, CCI's orders, Chairman's speeches and other resources (such as guides).

Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT)


Description. This is the COMPAT's official website, which contains COMPAT's orders.

The regulatory authority

Competition Commission of India (CCI)

Head. Devender Kumar Sikri (Chairperson)
Contact details. Smita Jhingran
Competition Commission of India
The Hindustan Times House 
18-20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi 110 001
T +91 11 2370 4651
F +91 11 2370 4652

Outline structure. The CCI consists of a chairperson and six members appointed by the central government.

Responsibilities. The CCI is a statutory body created under the Competition Act, entrusted with a duty to eliminate practices having adverse effects on competition. The CCI is also mandated to promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade for other market participants in India.

Procedure for obtaining documents. The final orders passed by the CCI can be accessed and downloaded from its website. Additionally, the General Regulations allow for inspection of the documents related to a case by a party to the case or any other person on demonstration of sufficient cause to the CCI.

Contributor profiles

Shweta Shroff Chopra, Partner

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co

T +91 11 2692 0500
F +91 11 2692 4900

Professional qualifications. Lawyer, India, 2003

Areas of practice. Competition.

Non-professional qualifications. LLB (Hons), Cardiff Law School, University of Wales; LLM, London School of Economics; Postgraduate Diploma in Law, College of Law, London

Recent transactions

  • Representing Holcim group companies ACC and Ambuja Cements in the Cement cartel case, JK Tyres in the alleged Tyres cartel case, Tata Chemicals in the alleged Soda Ash cartel case, Vodafone India on an anti-competitive tie-in case, Coal India in abuse of dominance and cartel cases in relation to procurement of explosives.
  • Represented Holcim Ltd in its "merger of equals" with Lafarge S. A., which involved negotiating remedies with the CCI.
  • Acted for GlaxoSmithKline plc in a transaction with Novartis AG involving an acquisition of Novartis' global human vaccines business, the sale of GSK's oncology products and the formation of a joint venture with Novartis in the global consumer healthcare business.
  • Obtaining unconditional clearances from the CCI for Temasek's proposed acquisition of Olam International, the joint venture between Shriram Polytechnic and Axiall LLC, Synnex Corporation's acquisition of IBM's CRM-BPO business, Nestle's acquisition of Pfizer global nutrition business, the Vedanta group reorganisation, Aditya Birla Group's investment in the Living Media Group, the belated notification by Temasek Holdings for proposed acquisition of shares in DBS Group Holdings.

Languages. English, Hindi, Gujarati

Professional associations/memberships. Bar Council of Delhi, India; Law Society, England and Wales.


  • Co-authored leading guides on the law of Dominance and Merger Control in India as part of the Getting the Deal Through series.
  • Regular speaker at various domestic and international forums on competition law in India.

Toshit Shandilya, Associate

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co

T +91 11 2692 0500
F +91 11 2692 4900

Professional qualifications. Lawyer, India, 2013

Areas of practice. Competition.

Non-professional qualifications. BA LLB (Hons), National Law University, Delhi

Recent transactions

  • Successfully defended Coal India Limited in various abuse of dominance cases in relation to imposing unfair terms and conditions in their supply agreements with its customers and setting aside of the penalty of US$264 million by the COMPAT.
  • Acted for Holcim Ltd in its "merger of equals" with Lafarge S.A. This is the first case where the CCI has ordered structural modifications involving disposal of assets.
  • Obtaining unconditional clearances from the Competition Commission of India for Microsoft's acquisition of the mobile handset business of Nokia LLC, the setting up of a joint venture between Boeing Singapore and SIA Engineering Company in relation to provision of MRO services in the Asia-Pacific region, and the proposed merger between MeadWestvaco Corporation and RockTenn Company.
  • Regularly involved in competition compliance for companies and trade associations.

Languages. English, Hindi.

Professional associations/memberships. Bar Council of Delhi.

{ "siteName" : "PLC", "objType" : "PLC_Doc_C", "objID" : "1248010609117", "objName" : "Restraints of trade and dominance in India overview", "userID" : "2", "objUrl" : "", "pageType" : "Resource", "academicUserID" : "", "contentAccessed" : "true", "analyticsPermCookie" : "25e8a493e:15b1573f31c:4df6", "analyticsSessionCookie" : "25e8a493e:15b1573f31c:4df7", "statisticSensorPath" : "" }