DBS Bank Ltd., India Branches — Combination C-2016/03/381
- Case No.C-2016/03/381
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A combination notified under section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 may be approved under section 31(1) where, on the notice and the factors listed in section 20(4), the Commission is of the opinion that it is not likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. Where the parties to a combination face significant competitive constraints from a large number of competing public and private players in the relevant segment, and there are no vertical relationships between them, the combination is not likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition. An approval under section 31(1) stands revoked if the information furnished by the acquirer is found to be incorrect.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Notice under Section 6 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 given by:
DBS Bank Limited, India Branches
CORAM:
Mr. S.L. Bunker Member
Mr. Sudhir Mital Member
Mr. U.C. Nahta Member
Mr. M.S. Sahoo Member
Legal Representative: M/s Trilegal Order under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. On 11th March 2016, the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) received a notice from DBS Bank Limited, India Branches (“DBS India”) under Section 6 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”).
2. The proposed combination relates to the acquisition of certain corporate loans1 by DBS India from Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., India Branches (“RBS India”), pursuant to a 1 These loans have been advanced by the RBS India to certain corporate borrowers.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
For Greater Good
Portfolio Sale Framework Agreement entered into and between them on 10th March 2016. (Hereinafter, DBS India and RBS India are collectively referred to as DBS India & RBS India “Parties”).
3. DBS Bank Limited, a company incorporated in Singapore and a part of DBS Group Holdings Ltd., is an international bank and has been issued a license by the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) to provide banking services in India in terms of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. At present, it operates through a network of twelve branches located in India.
4. The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., a company incorporated in Netherlands and part of the Royal Bank of Scotland group, is a banking company having international operations. RBS India has been issued a license by the RBI to provide banking services in India in terms of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. At present, it operates through a network of 10 branches located in India.
5. As stated in the notice, both DBS India and RBS India are engaged in providing banking products/services such as corporate banking, retail banking and treasury. Through the proposed combination, RBS India is exiting the corporate loans Segment. Currently, Parties are active in the segment of corporate loans of India.
6. On the basis of submission of the Parties, it is observed that they face significant competitive constraints from a large number of big public and private players providing a range of banking services including corporate loans.
7. As stated in the notice, there are no vertical relationships between the Parties in India.
8. Considering the facts on record and the details provided in the notice given under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act and assessment of the proposed combination on the basis of factors stated in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission is of the opinion that the proposed combination is not likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the Commission hereby approves the same under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act.
9. This order shall stand revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the Acquirer is found to be incorrect.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
For Greater Good
10. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Acquirer accordingly.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free