This table summarises all completed investigations by the Competition Commission of India (CC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under section 3 of the Competition Act 2002 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Agriculture• Agro Input Dealers Association• Agro Input Welfare Association• 4 individuals (listed here) Restrictive agreements • Infringement decision issued—21/08/20206; fines totalling INR 1,065,577 imposed Tyres• Rekha Agencies• SS Marketing Restrictive agreements • Infringement decision issued—21/08/2026; fines totalling INR 343,175 imposed Printer consumables• HP India Sales• 16 resellers Restrictive agreements • Infringement decision issued—14/07/2026; fines totalling INR 1.42bn imposed Investigations under section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Desktop microprocessors• Intel Corporation Concerns Intel abused its dominant position through a restrictive, India-specific warranty policy • Infringement decision issued—12/02/2026; fines totalling INR 273.8m imposed 2025 Investigations under section 3 of the Competition Act 2002 Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Liquor trade

Law360: India must pay Deutsche Telekom AG the US$132m an arbitrator has said the country owes the telecom after a massive satellite licensing deal went sour, a D.C. federal judge has ruled, waving away arguments that the district court can't enforce the award due to sovereign immunity.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in India and throughout the world are met, see firther: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Indian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in India? The Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) along with its implementing regulations is the only legislation governing merger control in India. In April 2023, the Government of India introduced the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Amendment Act) which brought several amendments to the Competition Act including a substantial overhaul to the regime. Subsequently, in September 2024, the relevant rules and regulations for implementing the changes were introduced, namely: • Competition Commission of India (Combinations) Regulations, 2024: these are the substantive regulations that operationalise the merger control provisions in the Competition Act • Competition (Criteria of Combination) Rules, 2024 (Green Channel Rules): these rules codify the criteria for availing the Green Channel route for filing (introduced in 2019) which allows for a fast-track approval for transactions

Law360: At least while it's appealing, India won't have to start paying Deutsche Telekom AG the US$155m an arbitrator and a DC federal court has said the country owes the telecom after a massive satellite licensing deal went sour, that court has ruled.

The Indian Government is seeking public comments on the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2024. This Bill aims to enhance the country's dispute resolution environment, strengthening institutional arbitration to resolve disputes efficiently. The Department of Legal Affairs has prepared the Bill along with a tabular statement outlining existing provisions and proposed amendments. The Department of Legal Affairs invites comments and feedback from the public on the draft amendments. The consultation closes on 3 November 2024.

Arbitration analysis: A fundamental aspect of an arbitration agreement is that it is independent of and separate from the main/underlying contract, even if it finds place as a term in the contract itself. This principle is settled law in most global jurisdictions, and also under Indian arbitration law. Most recently, the High Court of Bombay reiterated the doctrine of separability, recognising the obligation of a court to refer parties to arbitration and honour the arbitration agreement executed between them. In doing so, the court examined the grounds for invocation of its writ jurisdiction in a contractual dispute (with an instrumentality of the State), and observed that while this remedy may be available, it is limited to a very narrow scope, viz, to challenge palpably arbitrary actions of the State. In the facts of this case however, the court held that the dispute between the parties was arbitrable (being a purely contractual issue) and did not warrant interference through exercise of the court’s writ jurisdiction. The court also observed that the arbitration clause is an autonomous, self-contained agreement (independent of the underlying agreement), which survives termination of the underlying contract. Accordingly, the dispute was held arbitrable, and the writ petition filed by EBIX Cash, dismissed. Written by Shaneen Parikh, partner and head—International Arbitration; Sanskriti Sidana, principal associate; and Yashasvi Raj, associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

Arbitration analysis: In deciding an application for the appointment of an arbitrator, the Indian Supreme Court provided helpful guidance as to the circumstances in which a non-signatory may be joined as a party to an arbitration. In the context of a multi-party dispute, the Supreme Court that the relationship of the non-signatory with one or more signatories as well as the participation of the non-signatory in the negotiation, performance and termination of the underlying contract were important factors that ought to be considered in order to determine whether the non-signatory had in fact consented to be a party to the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court also held that in circumstances where issues of law and fact in making such a determination would likely be complex, the arbitral tribunal (and not the courts) should decide whether or not a non-signatory was in fact a party to the arbitration agreement. Written by Promod Nair, senior advocate at High Court of Karnataka.

Arbitration analysis: The Indian Supreme Court has held that lack of reasoning and inherent contradictions in an arbitral tribunal’s analysis will render an arbitral award liable to be annulled under Indian law. This case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court of a judgment of the Bombay High Court which set aside an arbitral award for being ‘patently illegal’. Patent illegality is a sub-set of the public policy ground for reviewing domestic awards under Indian law. In the context of a construction dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that lack of reasoning vitiated the arbitrator’s decision to award compensation in respect of certain claims. It also noted that certain findings of the arbitrator were inherently contradictory. For these reasons, and despite the narrow scope for annulment of awards under Indian law on public policy grounds, the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitral award was ‘patently illegal’ and was therefore liable to be set aside. While Indian arbitral jurisprudence has largely followed a pro-arbitration trajectory in recent years, this judgment illustrates the continuing willingness of the Indian courts to robustly review arbitral awards and set aside unreasoned or poorly reasoned arbitral awards. Arbitration award annulled by Indian Supreme Court as ‘patently illegal’. Written by Promod Nair, senior advocate at Arista Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Indian Supreme Court (Supreme Court) has held that an arbitral tribunal can allow joinder of a party to the arbitration even if: (a) the notice of arbitration was not served on such a party, and (b) the party was not impleaded in the court proceedings where the court appointed the arbitral tribunal. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that only an arbitral tribunal is entitled to rule on its jurisdiction over a party under section 16 of the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) and an application for joinder of such party. An arbitral tribunal is required to decide the said issues by examining whether the non-signatory consented to the arbitration agreement. Written by Shruti Dhonde (member), Adimesh Lochan (member) and Vyapak Desai (head) of the International Dispute Resolution and Investigations Practice at Nishith Desai Associates.

The Home Office has released details of the opening of the first ballot for the India Young Professionals Scheme visa in 2026, including how to apply. The ballot will open at 2:30pm India Standard Time on 17 February 2026 and close at 2:30pm India Standard Time on 19 February 2026, with successful entries selected at random. A total of 3,000 places are available under the scheme in 2026, with the majority to be allocated through the February 2026 ballot. The remaining places will be made available in the second and final ballot later in 2026. Indian citizens who are eligible for the visa can enter the ballot for free and must provide their name, date of birth, passport details, a scan or photo of their passport, phone number and email address. Successful candidates will be invited to apply for a visa via email. The visa application, biometrics and payment of the visa application fee and immigration health surcharge, must be submitted within 90 days from the date of the email. Unsuccessful applicants cannot appeal the decision.

Arbitration analysis: A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement will have no right to participate when the proceedings are not in relation to rights or properties affecting him, and the award does not have any binding effect in relation to his rights. Allowing a non-signatory to remain present will result in a breach of party autonomy and the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. A non-signatory to the arbitration agreement cannot invoke the inherent powers of the court under general procedural law to claim a right to remain present in the arbitration proceedings. The Indian Arbitration Act is a self-contained code regulating every aspect of its proceedings, and if it does not provide for something implicitly, then it excludes it explicitly. Written by Dipen Shah, senior arbitration and construction counsel, solicitor England and Wales, India.

Arbitration analysis: The Delhi High Court enforced a foreign arbitral award, rejecting all the objections raised against it for resisting enforcement. The enforcement proceeding was filed over 3 years after the date of the arbitral award. The Delhi High Court, interpreting the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’), held that an application of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award can be filed up to a period of 12 years from date of the arbitral award. Vyapak Desai, leader and head, Alipak Banerjee, leader and Bhavana Sunder, member of the international dispute resolution and investigations practice, Nishith Desai Associates, discuss the decision.