Haldiram Snacks Private Limited & Pioneer Securities Private Limited — Combination C-2019/10/693
- Case No.C-2019/10/693
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a combination involves parties that are not engaged in similar, identical or substitutable products or services, and the acquirer's purchases from the target are a small share of the relevant market (here, under 5% of the volume and value of the product procured), the Commission, having considered the notice under Section 6(2) and the factors in Section 20(4), may form the opinion that the combination is not likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and approve it under Section 31(1). An approval so granted is liable to be revoked if the information furnished by the acquirer is later 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 jointly filed by Haldiram Snacks Private Limited and Pioneer Securities Private Limited.
CORAM: Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson
Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member
Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member
Order under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. On 15th October, 2019, the Competition Commission of India received a notice jointly given by Haldiram Snacks Private Limited (“Acquirer 1”) and Pioneer Securities Private Limited (“Acquirer 2”) under Section 6 (2) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”).
2. The Proposed Combination envisages acquisition of 100% of the total issued and paid-up equity share capital of Kwality Limited (“Target”), which is currently undergoing insolvency resolution proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) (“Proposed Combination”). (Hereinafter, Acquirers and Target are collectively referred to as the “Parties”).
3. The Acquirer 1 is a private limited company and belongs to the Haldiram group. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of variety of snack products. The Haldiram Group has more than 50 restaurants mostly across National Capital Region (NCR). Its domestic market is widespread and also, export its products to various countries.
4. The Acquirer 2, a private limited company incorporated in India, renders services pertaining to stock and non-banking financial services.
5. The Target, a listed company incorporated in India, processes and sells milk and related dairy products.
6. As per the Notice, the Acquirers and the Target are not engaged in any business activities relating to similar or identical or substitutable products or services.
7. It is submitted in the notice that Acquirer 1 procure Ghee (a dairy product) from the Target. It is noted that the total quantity of Ghee purchased from Target in the previous financial year (2018-19) is less than 5% of the total value and volume of ghee purchased.
8. Considering facts on record, details provided in the Notice given under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act and assessment 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.
9. This order shall stand revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the Acquirer is found to be incorrect.
10. The information provided by the Acquirer shall be treated as confidential in terms of and subject to the provisions of Section 57 of the Act.
11. 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