Vidhi Research and Development LLP — Combination C-2015/10/331
- Case No.C-2015/10/331
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commission may approve a combination under Section 31(1) where, having assessed it against the factors in Section 20(4), it is of the opinion that the combination is not likely to have any appreciable adverse effect on competition in India. Where the target asset, here a formulations plant, has had no commercial operations, including R&D, since a given date, and the acquirer and entities controlled by its partners hold no significant investments in the relevant sector, no competition concern arises from the combination, and it is therefore not likely to have an appreciable adverse effect on competition. An approval so founded stands on the accuracy of the information furnished by the acquirer and is revoked if that information is found to be incorrect.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Notice under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002 given by Vidhi Research and Development LLP
Order under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”)
CORAM: Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson
Mr. S. L. Bunker Member
Mr. Sudhir Mital Member
Mr. Augustine Peter Member
Mr. M.S. Sahoo Member
Mr. U. C. Nahta Member
Mr. G. P. Mittal Member Legal representative: P. H. Bathiya & Associates 1. On 21.10.2015, the Competition Commission of India (“Commission”) received a notice given under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act (“Notice”), by Vidhi Research and Development LLP (“Vidhi” or the “Acquirer”). As per the information given in the Notice, the proposed combination relates to the acquisition of a formulations plant of Pfizer Limited (“Pfizer”) located at Thane District in COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA For Greater Good Maharashtra by Vidhi. For the purpose of the proposed combination, Vidhi and Pfizer entered into a Business Transfer Agreement on 23.09.2015.
2. The proposed combination falls under Section 5(a) of the Act.
3. In terms of Regulation 14 of the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Regulations, 2011, vide letter dated 18.11.2015, the Acquirer was required to remove certain defects and provide certain information, the response to which was received on 19.11.2015.
4. Vidhi is a limited liability partnership incorporated in India, on 15.09.2014. As per the information given in the Notice, Vidhi has not started any operation from the date of its incorporation. Pfizer is a company registered in India and is stated to be engaged in manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products in India.
5. As already stated, the proposed combination relates to acquisition of the formulations plant of Pfizer at Thane District in Maharashtra. In this regard, it has been submitted that there have been no commercial operations (including R&D operations) at the said plant since the year 2013. It is further observed from the information given in the Notice that the partners of Vidhi and entities controlled by them do not hold any significant investments in the pharmaceutical sector which may result in any competition concern.
6. Considering the facts on record and the details provided in the Notice given under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act and the assessment of the combination after considering the relevant factors mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission is of the opinion that the combination is not likely to have any appreciable adverse effect on competition in India and therefore, the Commission hereby approves the combination under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA For Greater Good 7. This order shall stand revoked if, at any time, the information provided by the Acquirer is found to be incorrect.
8. 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