Antitrust And Competition Newsletter | April 2026

In April 2026, India witnessed significant developments in competition law across enforcement, appellate review, and merger control. On the regulatory front, an amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 streamlined the requirement for prior CCI approval of resolution plans by shifting the approval timeline to post Committee of Creditors approval. Judicially, the Delhi High Court declined to interfere with the Competition Commission of India’s (“CCI”) investigation into alleged labour cartelisation involving International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., reinforcing deference to the Commission’s procedural discretion. At the appellate level, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) upheld the CCI’s findings of bid rigging in Indian Railways tenders, affirming liability and penalties on both enterprises and responsible individuals.

On the enforcement side, the CCI closed multiple cases alleging abuse of dominance and anti-competitive conduct across sectors including banking technology, renewable energy, and railway components, while also finding 17 electrical contractors guilty of bid rigging in Assam Police Housing tenders and issuing cease-and-desist directions. The CCI further directed an investigation into alleged vertical restraints in the poultry sector and declined interim relief in a defence procurement matter, reiterating the high threshold for such intervention. On the merger control front, the CCI approved a broad set of transactions spanning investment, financial services, hospitality, infrastructure, and renewables, including acquisitions involving Maple entities, Avendus Capital, KNR SPVs, Nabha Power, Aditya Birla Housing Finance, and Fleur Hotels.

To keep readers informed, this edition provides a concise overview of the Director General’s investigative powers and the recent IBC amendment affecting the timing of CCI approval in insolvency-related combinations, followed by key insights from recent Delhi High Court and NCLAT decisions, significant enforcement orders passed by the CCI, combinations approved by the CCI, and details of upcoming competition law events.

Scope of Powers of the Director General

In India, the CCI i.e., the Competition Commission of India is the primary authority responsible for enforcing competition law. For investigations into alleged contraventions, the CCI is assisted by its investigative arm, the Director General (“DG”), which conducts investigations independently in accordance with the directions issued by the CCI.

When so directed, the DG exercises its powers under Section 41 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”), which confers upon it the same powers as those vested with the CCI under Section 36(2). Under this provision, the CCI enjoys powers equivalent to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These powers include issuing summons, enforcing attendance, examining individuals on oath, requiring discovery and production of documents (including public records), and receiving evidence on affidavit. Therefore, the DG is authorized to exercise these powers during the course of its investigation. Further, where the DG has reasonable grounds to believe that evidence may be destroyed, concealed, altered, or falsified, it may, with prior approval from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, conduct unannounced search and seizure operations, commonly referred to as “dawn raids.”

Legal Update - Key Change to CCI Approval Requirement under the IBC

Latest amendment in the Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) modifies the timing of mandatory CCI approval for resolution plans constituting a combination under Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002. Previously, all resolution applicants were required to obtain CCI approval before acceptance of their resolution plan(s) by the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) proceedings under the IBC. Now, under the new framework such approval of the CCI is required to obtained after the acceptance of the resolution plan by the CoC. This modification eliminates multiple parallel CCI filings, reduces regulatory burden, and streamlines CIRP proceedings.

Orders / Judgments passed by the High Courts

Delhi HC Dismisses IFF's Challenge to CCI's Labour Cartel Investigation

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. Competition Commission of India (LPA 266/2026)

The Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 15.04.2026 dismissed the letters patent appeal filed by International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (“IFF”) against single judge’s judgment dated 23.02.2026 whereby CCI’s order directing investigation into alleged labour-related anti-competitive coordination under Section 3 of the Act was challenged.

IFF argued that the CCI's information pertained to conduct older than three years, and that the CCI had failed to record adequate "sufficient cause" before condoning the delay as mandated under the 1st and 2nd provisos to Section 19(1) of the Act. IFF further contended that the condonation impacted its substantive rights, not merely procedural ones.

The DHC held that the CCI had duly recorded reasons for condoning the delay, noting IFF's own admission that it became aware of the anti-competitive conduct only after dawn raids in March 2023. IFF’s prompt approach to the CCI upon notification of CCI (Lesser Penalty) Regulations 2024, displayed bonafide intent and willingness to cooperate. Relying on Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, the DHC reaffirmed that condonation orders by competent authorities are not to be disturbed by superior courts. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.

Orders / Judgments passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLAT upholds CCI’s bid rigging penalty against Indian Railways Vendors

Keshav Bihani vs. Competition Commission of India (Competition Appeal No. 44 & 45 of 2022)

The NCLAT, vide judgment dated 10.04.2026, dismissed the appeals filed by Keshav Bihani and M/s Hari Narayan Bihani (collectively, the “Appellants”) against the CCI’s orders whereby the Appellants, along with other vendors, were held guilty of participating in a bid-rigging cartel concerning tenders floated by Indian Railways for procurement of polyacetal protective tubes for axle box guides. The CCI had accordingly imposed penalty on M/s Hari Narayan Bihani under Section 27 of the Act and separately on Keshav Bihani under Section 48.

In its judgement, the NCLAT upheld the CCI’s findings and dismissed both appeals. It was held that the material on record, including the emails exchanged among the parties and the leniency application, constituted sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to establish that the Appellants were part of a bid-rigging cartel, and concurred with the CCI’s finding of contravention of Section 3(3)(a), 3(3)(b), 3(3)(c) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. With respect to liability under Section 48, the NCLAT rejected the argument that the provision could not be invoked against Keshav Bihani and held that the penalty imposed on him as the active partner of M/s Hari Narayan Bihani was legally valid. The Tribunal further held that the phrase “punished accordingly” in Section 48 meant that the punishment/penalty on the individual could be imposed in the same proportion as on the firm under Section 27.

Orders Passed and Combinations Approved by the Competition Commission of India

CCI closes information alleging anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance in Core Banking Solutions procurement charges

M/s Natural Support Consultancy Services Private Limited v. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development & Infosys Limited (Case No. 26 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 20.04.2026, closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act in relation to the information filed by M/s Natural Support Consultancy Services Private Limited against National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (“NABARD”) and Infosys Limited (“Infosys”), alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

The Informant submitted that NABARD had floated Request for Proposals (“RFPs”) on behalf of Rural Cooperative Banks for inviting vendors to provide Core Banking Solutions (“CBS”) to the banks. Under the 2011 RFP, NABARD empanelled Infosys as the original equipment manufacturer and Wipro as the system integrator under one consortium/vendor combination. According to the Informant, this arrangement was repeatedly extended beyond its original tenure, including continuation after Wipro’s withdrawal, which allegedly indicated an implicit anti-competitive arrangement between NABARD and Infosys. Further, the Informant alleged that the 2023 RFP for migration/upgradation from Finacle 7.x to Finacle 10.2.25 restricted participation only to system integrators authorized by Infosys, thereby excluding other service providers irrespective of their technical capability. The Informant alleged that such conditions amounted to preferential treatment and exclusive dealing/refusal to deal in violation of Sections 3(4)(b) and 3(4)(d) of the Act. Additionally, the Informant also alleged that NABARD, being a statutory monopoly and a dominant entity in the relevant market, imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions in the 2023 RFP, restricted market access, and leveraged its position to favour Infosys. This, according to the Informant, amounted to abuse of dominant position in contravention of Sections 4(2)(a)(i), 4(2)(b)(i), 4(2)(b)(ii), 4(2)(c), and 4(2)(e) of the Act.

In its assessment, the CCI independently delineated the relevant market as the “Market for procurement of CBS services for Rural Co-operative Banks in India” and prima facie found NABARD to be dominant in that market due to its statutory role and exclusive legal authority in relation to Rural Cooperative Banks. However, it found no abuse of such dominance. While rejecting the allegations under Section 4 of the Act, the CCI noted that the concerned cooperative banks were already operating on Infosys’s Finacle platform and had provided consent to continue on that platform. Consequently, the requirement that bidders be authorized partners of Infosys was held to be a reasonable technical condition to ensure compatibility, data security, and software integrity during migration/upgradation. The CCI therefore held that the condition was neither unfair nor discriminatory and did not amount to abuse of dominance.

With respect to the allegations under Section 3, the CCI held that NABARD, as the procuring authority, was entitled to prescribe eligibility, technical, and financial conditions, and that the continuation/renewal of the Finacle arrangement and the 2023 RFP conditions were intended to ensure continuity of essential banking operations. The CCI further held that there was no evidence of bias in favour of Infosys, no exclusive dealing agreement, and no refusal to deal. It also observed that the Informant had failed to place on record any evidence of collusion, concerted practice, or conduct between NABARD and Infosys resulting in an appreciable adverse effect on competition. Accordingly, the CCI found no prima facie contravention of Section 3 of the Act.

CCI closes information alleging bid-rigging and abuse of dominance in solar power manufacturing-linked tenders

In Re: Ravi Sharma v. Adani Enterprises Ltd. & Ors. (Case No. 36 of 2024)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 16.04.2026, closed the information filed by Ravi Sharma against Adani Enterprises Ltd., (“Adani Enterprises”) M/s Adani Green Energy Four Limited (“Adani Energy”), M/s Azure Power India Private Limited (“Azure Power”), Solar Energy Corporation of India (“SECI”) and others alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. The Informant's grievances stemmed from a 2019 Request for Selection ("RfS") issued by SECI for selection of solar power developers for setting up 7 GW ISTS-connected Solar PV Power Plants linked with 2 GW per annum Solar Manufacturing Plants. The Informant alleged that the RfS was deliberately structured to favour large players, particularly Adani Energy and Azure Power, while shutting out smaller competitors. It was further alleged that Azure Power participated merely as a proxy bidder for Adani Energy. It was also alleged that the said RfS violated Ministry of Power guidelines by linking solar generation with manufacturing capacity, and that the Green Shoe Option (which permits successful bidders to receive additional capacity over and above their original bid) was incorporated in breach of those guidelines. The Informant also relied upon a U.S. Department of Justice indictment to allege that the Adani Group had bribed government officials to secure contracts and manipulated the bidding process through cover bidding. Additionally, it was alleged that Adani Group abused its dominant position in renewable energy through rapid expansion, group-level financial support, economies of scale, cross-subsidisation, and vertical integration, which allegedly created entry barriers and exclusionary effects. The informant claimed that Adani Group was dominant in the market for utility-scale renewable energy generation in India and had violated Section 4(2) by imposing unfair conditions, restricting market access, leveraging its position, and creating artificial entry barriers.

In its analysis, the CCI observed that the Informant had failed to furnish evidence that the RfS was designed to favour Adani and Azure Power or that Azure Power was merely a cover bidder for Adani. On abuse of dominance, the CCI noted that power generation in India comprises multiple sources and numerous significant public and private players, and that the Informant had not placed material on record to justify a distinct relevant market or establish dominance of the Adani Group. The CCI also held that allegations regarding cross-subsidisation, leveraging, exclusion and bid-rigging were unsupported by cogent evidence, and that the alleged bribery-related conduct did not amount to abusive conduct within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. With respect to the Green Shoe Option and the tender structure, the CCI noted that such issues had already been considered by the CERC in relation to the same RfS and found no competition concern. Accordingly, the CCI held that no prima facie contravention of Sections 3 or 4 was made out and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

CCI finds 17 (Seventeen) electrical contractors guilty of bid-rigging in Assam Police Housing tenders

In Re: Alleged bid rigging in Tenders invited by Assam Police Housing Corporation Limited for “Internal and External Electrification works in Police Station Buildings” across the State of Assam (Suo-Motu Case No. 03/2021)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 07.04.2026, held 17 (Seventeen) electrical firms and their respective proprietors liable for bid-rigging under Section 3(3)(d) of the Act in relation to tenders invited by Assam Police Housing Corporation Limited (“APHCL”) for “Internal and External Electrification Works in the Police Station Buildings” across the State of Assam under the MOITRI Scheme. The CCI passed a cease-and-desist order under Section 27(a) of the Act, however imposed no monetary penalty for the said contravention.

The matter arose from a complaint dated 10.08.2020 received from the Office of the Accountant General (Audit), Assam, alleging that the tenders floated by APHCL for electrical works under the MOITRI Scheme had been rigged by 17 approved vendors, resulting in higher procurement cost of at least Rs. 7.56 crore. The allegations included that the bidders secured bid positions such as L-1, L-2 and L-3 in a coordinated manner, quoted different prices for the same items across tenders, and distributed wins among themselves. It was also alleged that L-1 bids were placed within a narrow range, that L-1 bidders quoted the exact Schedule of Rates / consultant-estimated rates, that errors made by consultants were replicated in bid submissions, and that bids were submitted from the same public IP address, indicating collusive conduct in the nature of bid rotation and cover bidding. On a prima facie examination, the CCI observed that the bidding pattern suggested a meeting of minds among the bidders and passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Act directing the DG to conduct investigation into the alleged contravention.

The DG returned its investigation report with adverse findings. The DG found that in 71 out of 73 tenders only 3 bidders participated and in the remaining 2 tenders, 4 bidders participated, with a uniform pattern of participation showing rotational bidding. The DG also found that all bidders except OP-17 won at least one tender, suggesting distribution of wins, and that different bidders secured L-1, L-2 and L-3 positions across near-identical tenders. The DG further found that in all L-1 bids, identical rates were quoted, while L-2 and L-3 bids quoted marginally higher rates in fixed multiples, indicating collusive bidding rather than independent price formation. Additionally, the DG noted that errors in the estimates prepared by consultants were also replicated by the bidders, including inflated pricing of Diesel Generators to match total estimated values and mistaken references to Solar Power Plant rates in place of Solar Street Light rates. The investigation also found use of common devices and IP addresses for bid submission, with bids uploaded within minutes of each other, and statements on oath revealed that bids for multiple bidders were submitted through the same cyber cafe by one individual on behalf of all bidders. Further, the DG found evidence of sequentially numbered demand drafts procured and tendered on behalf of multiple bidders, as well as call data records showing contact among bidders during the bid submission period. Based on this evidence, the DG concluded that all 17 opposite parties, being engaged in the same line of business, had entered into collusive arrangements and indulged in bid rotation and cover bidding in violation of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act, and also identified the proprietors of the respective firms for liability under Section 48 of the Act.

In its final assessment, the CCI examined the conduct of each opposite party tender-wise and held that the evidence, including identical bid mistakes, common IP addresses, call data records, sequentially numbered demand drafts, and the pattern of quote submission, established predetermined bid behaviour and collusive bidding across all 73 tenders. The CCI specifically noted that L-1 bidders quoted rates identical to consultant estimates not available in the public domain, while L-2 and L-3 bidders quoted higher rates in multiples of 10, 100 and 1000, and that the bidding pattern could not be explained by transportation, labour, or tax factors as claimed by the parties. Accordingly, the CCI held that all the opposite parties had entered into agreements and indulged in bid rigging / collusive bidding, thereby contravening Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. The CCI also held the sole proprietors of the opposite parties liable under Section 48(1) of the Act, rejecting the defence that sole proprietorship concerns fall outside the scope of that provision. However, on the issue of penalty, the CCI took note of mitigating submissions made by the parties, including that they were small business enterprises / sole proprietorships, had meagre turnover and profits, had allegedly participated in e-tenders for the first time, and that imposition of monetary penalty could render them economically unviable. Considering these factors, the CCI decided not to impose any monetary penalty under Section 27 of the Act. Instead, it passed a cease-and-desist direction against the opposite parties and their proprietors under Section 27(a) of the Act, while cautioning that any future relapse would be treated as recidivism with aggravated consequences.

CCI dismisses allegations of abuse of dominance against manufacturer of Short Neutral Section Assemblies

In Re: Kshitij Srivastava vs. M/s Arthur Flury India Private Limited (Case No. 40 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 07.04.2026, closed an information filed by Kshitij Srivastava against M/s Arthur Flury India Private Limited (“OP”) alleging abuse of dominance in the market for Short Neutral Section Assemblies (“SNSA”) in India. The Informant alleged that SNSA, being an RDSO-controlled critical safety component for Indian Railways, could only be procured from RDSO-approved sources; that after the Make in India policy effectively rendered foreign approved suppliers ineligible for sub-INR 200 crore tenders, the OP became the sole eligible indigenous supplier and thus enjoyed a monopoly; that its localisation was not genuine as all nine SNSA components were allegedly imported and only assembled in India; and that, after obtaining this position, it engaged in profiteering, extortionate and discriminatory pricing by increasing prices from INR 10.25 lakh to INR 12.90 lakh / INR 13.89 lakh, reducing rates after another indigenous vendor was approved despite adverse exchange-rate movement, and charging higher rates to Indian Railways than to EPC contractors for the same item.

In its assessment of the information, the CCI defined the relevant market as “the market for Short Neutral Section Assemblies in India” and prima facie found OP to be a dominant player during the period of 06.03.2023 to 31.12.2024. However, found no prima facie abuse because specifications were fixed by RDSO, entry of other vendors was not foreclosed, the alleged discriminatory pricing was not substantiated, and the pricing pattern could be explained by factors such as currency fluctuations, quantity, transport and logistics costs. Accordingly, the CCI held that no prima facie contravention of Section 4 was made out and closed the matter under Section 26(2) of the Act.

CCI directs investigation into VH Group for alleged vertical restraints in the poultry industry

In Re: People For Animals (PFA) vs. Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. & Others (Case No. 15 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 01.04.2026, passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Act directing the DG to investigate allegations of vertical restraints and abuse of dominance against Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. and its group entities / chairperson (“VH Group”) in the poultry sector. The Informant, People For Animals (“PFA”), alleged that the Broiler Breeder Agreement (“BBA”) and Layer Breeder Agreement (“LBA”) between entities belonging to the VH Group and breeders, imposed unfair and exclusionary conditions on breeders, including restrictions on sale of commercial chicks / hatching eggs to “unauthorized persons” and prohibitions on dealing with competing breeds, in violation of Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Act.

In its assessment of the information, the CCI prima facie accepted the relevant markets as (i) the market for production and supply of parent stock of commercially viable layer hen breeds in India; and (ii) the market for production and supply of grandparent/parent stock of commercially viable broiler chicken breeds in India. While the CCI did not examine dominance further at this stage, it found prima facie that the standard-form BBA and LBA imposed restrictive conditions, particularly through Clause 7.1.10 read with Clause 1.19 of the BBA, Clauses 3.4.4 and 7.1.11 read with Clause 1.20 of the LBA, Clause 7.1.13 of the BBA and Clause 7.1.14 of LBA, which limited breeders’ ability to sell to third parties and deal in competing breeds. The CCI observed that such clauses prima facie amounted to exclusive supply and distribution restraints under Section 3(4) and may cause AAEC, and accordingly directed the DG to investigate the matter, including the role of persons / officers under Section 48.

CCI Rejects Interim Relief Application Alleging Bid Rigging in Defence Sector Tenders

In Re: M/s Universal Yarns & Tex Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Jupiter Rubber Pvt. Ltd. , & M/s Jupiter Coaters Pvt. Ltd. (Case No. 18 of 2025)

The CCI, vide its Order dated 01.04.2026, passed an order under Section 33 of the Act disposing of an application for interim relief filed by M/s Universal Yarns & Tex Pvt. Ltd. (“Informant”) against M/s Jupiter Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jupiter Coaters Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, “OPs”) in relation to alleged bid rigging in tenders floated by Ordnance Equipment Factory (“OEF”), Kanpur. The Informant alleged that the OPs, having common management/shareholding, engaged in collusive bidding by submitting identical bids and supplying TPO coated fabrics at higher prices, in contravention of Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. In the background, the CCI had, vide order dated 05.03.2026, already directed the DG to investigate the matter under Section 26(1) of the Act. Pending investigation, the Informant sought interim relief under Section 33, requesting that the OPs be restrained from participating in ongoing and future tenders floated by OEF.

In its assessment, the CCI relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in CCI v. SAIL to reiterate that interim relief under Section 33 requires a higher threshold than a prima facie view and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances where there is clear evidence of ongoing contravention, necessity of restraint, and likelihood of irreparable harm or adverse effect on competition. The CCI found that, at this stage, the Informant had failed to establish a strong prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable or irreversible harm, or show that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. The Commission further observed that restraining the OPs from tender participation could itself have significant market implications and affect competition. Accordingly, the CCI held that no exceptional circumstances existed warranting the grant of interim relief and rejected the Informant’s application under Section 33, while clarifying that its observations would not affect the ongoing investigation by the DG.

Combinations Approved by CCI

• CCI approves the proposed acquisition by MAIF 4 Investments India 2 Pte. Ltd. of 42.5% of the equity share capital of Maple IM, 40.0% of the equity share capital of Maple PM and up to 37.5% of the units of Maple Trust.¹
• CCI approves acquisition of certain equity share capital of Avendus Capital Private Limited by Mizuho Securities Co., Ltd. on a fully diluted basis.²
• CCI approves proposed merger of A1 Agri Global Limited, B.N. Agritech Limited and Salasar Balaji Overseas Private Limited into BN Agrochem Limited.³
• CCI approves the proposed restructuring by Vishakha Renewables Pvt. Ltd. of its renewables business and merge with and into Vishakha Glass Private Limited.⁴
• CCI approves acquisition of 100% equity shareholding of KNR SPVs by Indus Infra Trust from KNR Constructions Limited.⁵
• CCI approves acquisition by Citrus Investment LLC (Citrus) of (i) additional shareholding of 0.4% in Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. (HCM) and (ii) sole control of its 50:50 joint venture, HCJI Holdings K. K. (HCJI).⁶
• CCI approves the proposed acquisition of 100% equity shares and noncumulative optionally convertible redeemable preference shares in Nabha Power Ltd. by Torrent Power Ltd.⁷
• CCI approves the acquisition of equity shares amounting to 14.286% of the Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited by the Indriya Limited.⁸
• CCI approves acquisition of certain equity shares by Coastal Cedar Investments B.V. in Fleur Hotels Limited and internal restructuring of Lemon Tree Hotels Limited group through amalgamation and demerger.⁹
• CCI has approved acquisition of BP Alternative Energy Investments Limited in Lightsource BP Renewable Energy Investment Holdings Limited. The transaction involves the acquisition of outstanding shares amounting to 50.03% of the equity share capital.¹⁰

Deemed Approvals

• Permira Growth II Topco (Lux) Fifteen Bidco S.A.R.L have received deemed approval under Section 6(5) of the Act for the proposed acquisition of 40.11% shareholding of SILA Solutions Private Limited.¹¹
• Motion JVCo Limited (“Motion JVCo”), Stonepeak Motion HoldCo Limited (“Stonepeak HoldCo”), Stonepeak Motion Infrastructure Fund Middle Holdings LP (“Stonepeak SPV”), BP Motion Holdings Limited (“BPMH”) and CPP Investment Board Private Holdings (6) Inc. (“CPPIB InvestCo”) have received deemed approval under Section 6(5) of the Act for the following proposed transactions:
  • Motion JVCo to acquire 100% of the shares and voting rights in Castrol Group Holdings Limited (“CGHL”).
  • BPMH is set to acquire 35% of its shares and voting rights in Motion JVCo with Stonepeak HoldCo holding the rest 65%.
  • CPPIB InvestCo is set to make a capital investment indirectly in CGHL.
  • Motion JVCo, together with Stonepeak HoldCo, Stonepeak Infrastructure Fund V Cayman (AIV I) LP, Stonepeak Infrastructure Fund V (Lux) (AIV I) SCSp and CPPIB InvestCo (acting as persons in concert), propose to acquire up to 26% of the equity share capital of Castrol India under the open offer.¹²

Mark Your Calendar: Upcoming Events!

• 20th Annual IBA Competition Mid-Year Conference, organised by the International Bar Association (IBA) Antitrust Section, scheduled for May 28-29, 2026 in Netherlands. (click here)
• ABA Antitrust Global Seminar Series (GSS) - Mexico, organised by the American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section, scheduled for May 13, 2026, in Mexico. (click here)
• 21st Annual Conference of the Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA), scheduled for July 1-3, 2026, at University College London and King's College London. (click here)
• 30th Annual IBA Competition Conference, organised by the IBA Antitrust Section, for October 4-9, 2026, in Denmark. (click here)
• 20th AAI Annual Private Antitrust Enforcement Conference, organised by the American Antitrust Institute, scheduled for November 5, 2026 at Washington, D.C., USA .(click here)

Footnotes

1. C-2026/03/1399

2. C-2026/03/1395

3. C-2025/12/1362

4. C-2026/03/1391

5. C-2026/02/1389

6. C-2026/02/1387

7. C-2026/02/1386

8. C-2026/02/1384

9. C-2026/02/1382

10. C-2026/02/1381

11. C-2026/04/1405

12. C-2026/04/1412