Naval Satarawala Chopra

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Lawyer (Partner)

Naval Satarawala Chopra is a partner in the competition law practice at Amarchand & Mangaldas (New Delhi offices). Naval focuses on contentious cases covering the entire range of competition law, including cases on abuse of dominance, cartel investigations and merger control in India. He regularly represents clients before the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Appellate Tribunal and is a frequent commentator on competition law issues in India. Prior to joining Amarchand & Mangaldas, Naval was an associate at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, in London for over four years. Naval is qualified to practice in New York, England & Wales and India. He holds an LL.B. from ILS Law College, Pune, and an LL.M. from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Indian Competition Commission (New delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (New Delhi)
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (Mumbai)

Articles

2423 Bulletin

Pallavi Shroff, John Handoll, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Shweta Shroff Chopra, Harman Singh Sandhu, Manika Brar, Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Yaman Verma, Rohan Arora The Competition Commission of India finds an association of medicine dealers has collected charges that are illegal under national competition law (Jalgaon District Medicine Dealers Association)

93

In a case against the Jalgaon District Medicine Dealers Association (Association), the CCI found that the Association had collected Product Information Service (PIS) charges from manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. The CCI found that payment of the PIS charges was mandatory and, (...)

Pallavi Shroff, Shweta Shroff Chopra, Rohan Arora, Gauri Chhabra, Yaman Verma, Aparna Mehra, Manika Brar, Harman Singh Sandhu, Naval Satarawala Chopra, John Handoll The Competition Commission of India finds the distribution arrangments of a supplier of mobile handsets to be prima facie compliant with national law (Vivo)

93

The CCI closed at prima facie stage a case against Vivo Mobile (Vivo), a supplier of mobile handsets, finding that its distribution arrangements raised no concerns under Section 3(4) of the Competition Act which prohibits vertical agreements with an appreciable adverse effect on competition (...)

Pallavi Shroff, John Handoll, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Shweta Shroff Chopra, Harman Singh Sandhu, Manika Brar, Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Yaman Verma, Rohan Arora The Indian Competition Commission finds that chemist associations and pharmaceutical companies had engaged in a system of no-objection certificates under which the associations prescribed which stockist could stock a company’s products

62

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) found that two chemist associations and two pharmaceutical companies had engaged in a system of no-objection certificates (NOC) under which the associations prescribed which stockist could stock a company’s products.1 The associations and certain of (...)

Pallavi Shroff, John Handoll, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Harman Singh Sandhu, Manika Brar, Aparna Mehra, Yaman Verma, Rohan Arora, Shweta Shroff Chopra, Gauri Chhabra The Competition Commission of India finds two chemist associations and two pharmaceutical companies to have used no-objection certificates (Madhya Pradesh Chemists)

24

India Competition Law Roundup: June 2019 The Competition Commission of India (CCI) found that two chemist associations and two pharmaceutical companies had engaged in a system of no-objection certificates (NOC) under which the associations prescribed which stockist could stock a company’s (...)

Pallavi Shroff, John Handoll, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Shweta Shroff Chopra, Harman Singh Sandhu, Manika Brar, Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Yaman Verma, Rohan Arora The Indian Competition Commission clears a merger, subject to remedies, in the electricity market (Larsen & Toubro/Schneider Electric)

33

The CCI cleared the proposed acquisition of the electrical and automation business of Larsen & Toubro (L&T) by Schneider Electric and MacRitchie Investments (the Acquirers) on foot of a package of behavioural remedies proposed by the Acquirers. After a lengthy investigation, the CCI (...)

Pallavi Shroff, John Handoll, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Shweta Shroff Chopra, Harman Singh Sandhu, Manika Brar, Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Yaman Verma, Rohan Arora The Indian Competition Commission finds that a company abuses its dominant position by requiring device manufacturers wishing to pre-install apps to adhere to a compatibility standard (Google Android)

55

Following a complaint made by a number of users of smartphones using the Android operating system, the CCI prima facie found that Google was dominant in the market for licensable smart mobile device operating systems in India and had abused its dominant position by requiring device (...)

Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Harman Singh Sandhu, John Handoll, Manika Brar, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Pallavi Shroff, Shweta Shroff Chopra The Indian Competition Authority holds that information exchange is not a standalone violation of the Indian Competition Act (Flashlights cartel)

478

On 6 November 2018, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found that four manufacturers/traders of flashlights and their trade association (the Opposite Parties) were not involved in cartelisation as, despite an information exchange, there was not enough corroborating evidence to suggest a (...)

Aparna Mehra, Gauri Chhabra, Harman Singh Sandhu, John Handoll, Manika Brar, Naval Satarawala Chopra, Pallavi Shroff, Shweta Shroff Chopra The Indian Competition Authority conditionally clears a merger in the agrochemicals and seeds industry (Bayer / Monsanto)

508

In an order dated 14 June 2018, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) approved Bayer AG’s (Bayer) acquisition of Monsanto Company (Monsanto) (together, the Parties) subject to certain modifications. Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. represented Monsanto and assisted in seeking the CCI’s (...)

John Handoll, Manika Brar, Naval Satarawala Chopra The Indian Supreme Court clarifies the scope of the investigative powers of the Director General of the Competition Authority and the establishment of an agreement to indulge in collusive bidding (Crop Care)

171

On 10 May 2017, the Supreme Court of India published its judgment dated 8 May 2017 in Excel Crop Care Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr . This judgment deals with important issues on the applicability of the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) to conduct prior to its coming (...)

Naval Satarawala Chopra, Pallavi Shroff, Shweta Shroff Chopra The Indian Competition Authority grants a 75% reduction in penalty in a cartel case in the railway sector, after applying the leniency program (Pyramid Electronics)

320

Introduction The Competition Commission of India (CCI) in the first ever decision involving leniency in a cartel case (Suo Moto Case No. 03 of 2014 – In Re: Cartelization in respect of tenders floated by Indian Railways for supply of Brushless DC Fans and other electrical items), published on (...)

Naval Satarawala Chopra, Pallavi Shroff, Shweta Shroff Chopra The Indian Government publishes notifications enhancing the existing jurisdictional thresholds in the merger control regime amending the existing exemptions

83

The Indian merger control regime under the Competition Act, 2002 (Competition Act) has been in force for nearly five years. The provisions of the Competition Act are to be read together with the notifications issued, from time to time, by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India (...)

Naval Satarawala Chopra, Pallavi Shroff, Shweta Shroff Chopra The Competition Commission of India fines an undertaking for failing to notify a merger within 30 days of the trigger date (GE)

140

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently imposed a penalty of INR 5 crores (approximately USD 750,000) on GE for its failure to notify the proposed acquisition of Alstom companies within 30 days of the trigger date. The penalty imposed on GE is the highest penalty for late filing (...)

Send a message