https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460183 Locus standi under the Competition Act was construed widely, so competitors and affected market participants who had objected before the Commission could challenge the combination approval. Section 29(1) required notice to both parties to the combination, but on the facts the omission to notify the target, which was in insolvency resolution and already part of the information flow, did not by itself invalidate the approval. Section 29(2) required a fresh prima facie assessment only if appreciable adverse effect on competition concerns persisted; once the Commission accepted the response and voluntary modification as sufficient, publication was not mandatory. The approval was upheld, with no non-application of mind or breach of natural justice. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jan 2025 19:59:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460183 Locus standi under the Competition Act was construed widely, so competitors and affected market participants who had objected before the Commission could challenge the combination approval. Section 29(1) required notice to both parties to the combination, but on the facts the omission to notify the target, which was in insolvency resolution and already part of the information flow, did not by itself invalidate the approval. Section 29(2) required a fresh prima facie assessment only if appreciable adverse effect on competition concerns persisted; once the Commission accepted the response and voluntary modification as sufficient, publication was not mandatory. The approval was upheld, with no non-application of mind or breach of natural justice. Case-Laws Law of Competition Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460183