Disclaimer

By clicking, "I Accept" below, you accept and acknowledge the following:

The purpose of this website is to provide general information and insights about TLH, Advocates & Solicitors, and not to advertise or solicit work in any manner whatsoever.

Please note that as per the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates in India are prohibited from advertising or soliciting work in any form or manner. You acknowledge that you are visiting this website at your discretion and that there has been no solicitation, invitation, or inducement of any sort whatsoever from TLH, Advocates & Solicitors or any of its professionals in relation to this website.

The content available on this website does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be substituted for advice relevant to particular circumstances.

The access and use of this website does not establish any fiduciary or other relationship between you and TLH, Advocates & Solicitors or any of its advocates.

Please read the ‘Terms of Use’ and our ‘Privacy Policy’ before accessing this website.

Blog default background
Blog
Corporate Law

Notifiability of ‘Interconnected Transactions’ Under the Competition Act, 2002

Authors:
Dippyaman Bhattacharya
December 22, 2025
•
5 min read
Share this post
Copied!

The Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) classifies certain types of acquisition, merger, and amalgamation as ‘combination’ (“Combination”)[1] and mandates these Combinations to be notified to and be approved by the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) prior to its consummation.[2] The Act further prescribes that a series of steps or smaller inter-connected transactions, when viewed individually, may not meet the notification thresholds, but when considered collectively, constitute a Combination.[3] In such case, it is important to understand what are the factors that render these smaller transactions as inter-connected and thereby notifiable to the CCI.

 

CCI has previously examined the notifiability of inter-connected transactions in a series of cases and has guided on the key factors that influence such determination. Some of the CCI’s decisions, which helped identify the indicative factors that render a series of transactions as inter-connected ae set out below:

 

1. In Novartis AG and GlaxoSmithKline Plc [4], CCI had received three separate notices for three inter-conditional and inter-dependent transactions[5].CCI stated that “since the parties envisage and admit the three steps/transactions as part of a one wider transaction, the Parties be required to file one notice covering all the three transactions”.[6]

 

2. In Piramal Enterprises Ltd. and Shriram Group [7], the question was whether a set of individual transactions[8] occurring at different periods would be considered as inter-connected and thereby a Combination. CCI observed that these transactions were specified as ‘strategic and for long-term partnership and association’ in the post-transaction annual report of the acquirer. Accordingly, CCI concluded that these transactions were “interconnected and were made strategically to enter into partnership with and to acquire (joint) control over the financial services business of the Shriram group of companies”.[9]

 

3. In CCI’s proceeding against Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (“CPPIB”) and ReNew Power Limited [10],CCI observed that certain additional transactions (“Transaction II”) were conducted by the parties after receiving CCI’s approval on a few initial transactions (“Transaction I”).CCI held Transaction I and Transaction II to be interconnected by stating that“ Transaction II was not merely a matter of knowledge of CPPIB gained out of general due diligence but was one of its key considerations and also the rationale for contemplating Primary Acquisition in Transaction I.” [11]

 

4. In AXA India Holdings and Société Beaujon [12],CCI decided that both sets of acquisition transactions in question were interconnected given that a single term sheet has been executed for the purpose of both the acquisitions. [13]

 

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”) had, in its landmark judgement against civil appeal filed in Thomas Cook (India) Ltd [14] case, observed that the parties had conducted multiple transactions while only some of the transactions were being notified to CCI. Aligning with the previous ruling of CCI in this case, SC held that all these transactions are inter-connected considering that they “are intrinsically connected and interdependent with each other and form part of one viable business transaction”.[15]SC’s ruling in this case was based on the observation that “the scheme was prepared on the same day and the three companies passed the resolution on the same day”, and that “market purchases would not have taken place in the absence of scheme and the other acquisitions”[16].

 

Based on the precedence set out above, the following factors can reasonably be considered indicative for determining whether a series of transactions are inter-connected:

 

1. The series of transactions is a part of a wider transaction.[17]

 

2. The series of transactions is strategic to the long-term goal.[18]

 

3. One transaction is a key consideration and also the rationale for contemplating the other transaction.[19]

 

4. The series of transactions is based on a single agreement or term sheet.[20]

 

5. The series of transactions is authorised under the same resolution or on the same date.[21]

 

6. There is simultaneity in negotiation, execution, consummation, and/or public announcements of these transactions.[22]

 

7. Internal documents or post-transaction disclosures evidence strategic coherence of these transactions.[23]

 

It is important to note that the above is only indicative. CCI determines each case on its own merits and based on the specific facts and circumstances. Given the subjective nature of determining inter-connected transactions, businesses planning mergers and acquisitions in India should carefully consider their transaction structures to ensure that they comply with the notifiability requirement if their structure contains series of transaction which are inter-connected based on the above indicative factors.

 

References

 

[1] The Competition Act 2002 s 5.

 

[2] The Competition Act 2002 s 6.

 

[3] Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations 2024, reg 9(4).

 

[4] Novartis AG and GlaxoSmithKline Plc (The Novartis) [2014] Combination Reg No.C-2014/07/188, CCI Order.

 

[5] Transaction relating to the acquisition of a vaccine business, formation of a joint venture, and acquisition of an oncology business.

 

[6] The Novartis (n 4) [8].

 

[7] Piramal Enterprises Ltd and Shriram Group (Piramal Enterprises) [2016] Combination Reg No. C-2015/02/249.

 

[8] Pertaining to acquisition of stakes and subscription (by way of preferential allotment) in Sriram group companies.

 

[9] Piramal (n7) [7(d)].

 

[10] Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and ReNew Power Ltd [2019] Combination Reg No.C-2017/11/536, CCI Order.

 

[11] ibid[28].

 

[12] AXA India Holdings and Société Beaujon (AXA) [2015] Combination Reg No. C-2015/04/267 CCI Order.

 

[13] ibid [6].

 

[14] Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. CCI (Thomas Cook) [2018] Civil Appeal No. 13578 of 2015.

 

[15] ibid[26].

 

[16] ibid[27].

 

[17] The Novartis (n 4).

 

[18] Piramal Enterprises (n 7).

 

[19] CPPIB and Renew (n 10).

 

[20] AXA (n12).

 

[21] Thomas Cook (n 14) [26], [27].

 

[22] CPPIB and Renew (n 10).

 

[23] Thomas Cook (n 14).

‍

Corporate law
TLH, Advocates & Solicitors

Footnotes

Share this post
Copied!

Latest posts

Dispute Resolution
October 8, 2026
Arbitration Case Comment: Venue is Seat in the absence of contrary indicia ��� Implied Overruling of The Verdict in the Hardy Exploration case
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of India has far reaching ramifications for arbitration law in the country. While the decision in the BGS Soma[1] case has seemingly set out the ���correct law�۝ concerning the venue and seat dichotomy which has been the subject matter of a high volume of contested litigation over the years, its clarity and efficacy may come undone due to issues touching on the law of precedent.
Read more
Arrow Right
Information Technology
October 8, 2026
Privacy Shield Set Aside by CJEU ��� A Guidance for India
The European Union (���EU�۝) is a major source of revenue for the information technology and business process outsourcing industry in India. However, there are several challenges that India faces with respect to transfer of personal data from EU to India. Presently, the data protection regime in India does not provide the same level of protection as the data protection regime in the EU, in particular because the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 has not been enacted yet.
Read more
Arrow Right
Corporate Law
October 8, 2026
The Fate of Online Gaming in India: Game of Chance versus Game of Skill
With the advent of technology, there have been a lot of developments and inventions which have blurred the concepts of physical presence and boundaries that were prevalent a couple of decades ago. Today, even traditional games like rummy, flush, poker, ludo, cricket, etc. are played online, some of which include real money as stakes. ��
Read more
Arrow Right
Corporate Law
October 8, 2026
Whether Call / Put Options in FDI Transactions are considered as Assured Returns?
In the context of increased liberalisation of various foreign exchange laws in India, the country has seen a surge in the investment from abroad. Whereas, in case of divestments by foreign investors, the Indian foreign exchange laws have not been as liberalised as the foreign investors would have preferred, especially with regards to an assured exit price.
Read more
Arrow Right
October 8, 2026
Captive Generating Plants in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
A captive generating plant is a power plant set up by any person to generate electricity primarily for his own use and includes a power plant set up by any co-operative society or association of persons for generating electricity primarily for use of members of such co-operative society or association (���CGP�۝).
Read more
Arrow Right
Employment Law
October 8, 2026
Non-Compete Clauses in Employment Contracts
A very fine line divides the issues that fall within the sphere of: (a) the principle of the freedom to contract, and (b) restraint of trade. A non-compete clause by its very nature falls on the periphery.
Read more
Arrow Right
View All Blogs
Arrow Right