The Competition Commission of India on 26 September 2026 marked the proposed acquisition of IntelliSmart Infrastructure by Adani Energy Solutions as ‘information incomplete’. The designation means that the regulator’s request for additional data pauses the statutory 180‑day merger review clock. Adani Energy Solutions and IntelliSmart now face an indeterminate delay in completing the ₹3,050‑crore transaction. The clarification narrows the scope of what constitutes a procedural pause under the Competition Act, 2002.

Full News Breakdown

The filing of a merger notification for the ₹3,050‑crore acquisition triggered a request from the regulator for detailed information on market overlaps, leading the Commission to dispute whether the request should halt the prescribed review period. The core disagreement centered on the interpretation of the statutory time‑limit provision, and the Commission ultimately classified the combination as “information incomplete”, thereby suspending the clock until the parties complied.

• Case Name: Adani Energy Solutions Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India (Information Incomplete Order)

• Court: Competition Commission of India

• Date: 26 September 2026

• Statutes Cited: Competition Act, 2002

• Key Provisions: Section 6 (time limit), Section 5 (merger notification)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether a regulator’s request for additional information pauses the 180‑day merger review period

• Petitioner Arguments: The request should be counted within the 180‑day limit, shortening the overall timeline

• Respondent Arguments: Routine information requests are excluded from the statutory time limit and therefore do not affect the clock

• Court's Reasoning: The Commission held that the statutory language on “time limit” refers to the period for decision, not for information gathering, and therefore the clock stops when the status is marked “information incomplete”

• Ratio Decidendi: Information requests do not form part of the prescribed review period under Section 6

• Operative Order: The combination is classified as “information incomplete” and the review clock is suspended until the parties comply

• Practical Outcome: The merger approval timeline extends beyond the original 180‑day window, delaying deal closure

How Does This Affect You?

Before this order, parties could not be certain whether a regulator’s routine request would extend the 180‑day deadline, creating strategic uncertainty in merger planning. The Commission expressly clarified that such requests are excluded from the statutory review clock, meaning the clock is paused until the required information is furnished. In practice, applicants must now anticipate a separate response period and incorporate potential extensions into their transaction timelines. This shift informs the three audience sections that follow.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Insert a “Regulatory Delay” clause in merger agreements that automatically extends the closing date by the period the CCI marks the combination as information incomplete, thereby protecting clients from breach of contract claims.

• Design a dedicated “CCI Response Schedule” within the due‑diligence plan, allocating up to 30 days for each information request because these periods are outside the 180‑day limit and must be satisfied before the clock resumes.

• Expand the market‑overlap memorandum to include granular data on cloud‑service architectures, downstream gas‑metering, and upstream vertical linkages, reflecting the Commission’s focus on both horizontal and vertical dimensions in the smart‑metering sector.

• Cite the information‑incomplete order as precedent when contesting a counter‑party’s allegation that a delayed response constitutes a material adverse change, demonstrating that the delay is procedurally permissible.

• Advise clients that transactions likely to attract extensive technical queries now carry heightened financing risk; recommend arranging contingency funding or escrow extensions to cover any period beyond the original 180‑day horizon.

For Law Students

The decision illustrates how procedural timelines under the Competition Act are interpreted separately from substantive information‑gathering duties. The core doctrine is the distinction between the statutory decision‑making period and the regulator’s investigatory discretion.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Merger control procedure under the Act

• Section 6 time‑limit analysis

• Role of “information incomplete” status

• Vertical market assessment in competition law

• Drafting of regulatory‑delay provisions in commercial contracts
  Comparing this order with Reliance‑Jio (2022, Delhi High Court) and Bharat Petroleum Corp. (2020, Supreme Court) shows how courts balance statutory deadlines against the need for complete market data, highlighting the evolving interpretation of procedural pauses.

For Businesses

• Smart‑meter manufacturers planning acquisitions must revise board‑level transaction timelines to include a contingency period for CCI information requests, or risk breaching closing conditions and incurring penalty payments.

• Energy utilities should amend internal merger‑clearance checklists to capture a separate “CCI response” milestone, ensuring finance teams allocate working capital for possible extensions beyond the original schedule.

• Cloud‑service providers partnering with utilities need to maintain up‑to‑date service‑level agreements and technical dossiers, because incomplete documentation can trigger additional CCI scrutiny and delay approvals.

• CFOs must obtain board approval for extended escrow arrangements that cover the period beyond the original 180‑day window, mitigating funding gaps if the merger is postponed.

Key Takeaways

• The Act now expressly treats CCI information requests as outside the 180‑day decision period, establishing a distinct procedural pause.

• Practitioners must embed separate response timelines and regulatory‑delay clauses in merger documentation to manage the newly recognised pause.

• The Commission can issue an information‑incomplete status without violating Section 6, but must resume the clock only after receipt of the requested data.

• Watch for the forthcoming amendment to the Competition (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which is expected to codify the treatment of information requests within the review timeline.

• In‑house counsel should revise their merger‑clearance SOPs before the next quarterly board meeting to incorporate the new response schedule.

Source: CCI seeks more info on Adani Energy's IntelliSmart deal