Which regulator approved the proposed combination amalgamating BMM Ispat into JSW Steel?

The correct answer is 58.47 per cent. JSW Projects Limited, an unlisted company of the JSW Group based in Mumbai, holds that share of the equity in BMM Ispat Limited at present, and the proposed combination is meant to convert this majority interest into full ownership by amalgamating BMM into JSW Steel Limited. The stated aim is to improve operational, financial and organisational efficiency through economies of scale, pooling of resources and rationalisation of capital, since BMM is already integrated into the group supply chain through sales and purchases within the group. The other options are ordinary shareholding thresholds that often appear in company law questions, but none of them is the figure stated for this transaction. BMM itself runs an integrated steel plant of about one million tonnes a year in Karnataka.

The correct answer is VINCI S.A. The acquirer is a company incorporated under the laws of France and is ultimately controlled by VINCI S.A. through VINCI Highways and VINCI Concessions. VINCI is a global player in concessions, energy and construction with operations in a large number of countries. The targets are special purpose vehicles that operate specific stretches of national highway in Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Gujarat, together with a company that supplies them operation and maintenance as well as engineering, procurement and construction services. Option B is the private equity firm behind a different approval of the same day, the nutraceuticals transaction. Option C manages the pension fund behind the hospitality transaction. Option D is named only as a plausible infrastructure investor and is not the parent described in the approval.

The correct answer is G20. India and the United Kingdom reaffirmed their support for the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-Border Payments, and went on to discuss practical ways of cutting frictions, improving transparency and making cross-border payments more efficient in line with that roadmap. They also noted the work being carried forward in the G20 to promote interoperability and interlinkages between electronic payment infrastructures, and updated each other on their retail payment systems. Option B is wrong because the G7 is not named in the statement. Option C is wrong because BRICS does not appear either, even though India is a member of it. Option D is wrong because the OECD is not mentioned in connection with the payments roadmap. The G20 link is the one to remember, along with India's digital public infrastructure story shared at the meeting.

The correct answer is 15 July 2026. The joint statement records that the two sides reflected on a strengthened relationship, particularly in the light of the launch of Vision 2035, and underlined the importance of driving the implementation of the UK-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which entered into force on 15 July 2026. Option A is wrong because 29 September 2026 is the day the fourth Financial Markets Dialogue itself met in London, not the day the trade agreement took effect. Option B is wrong because no date in April is linked to the agreement in the statement. Option D is wrong because the statement gives July, not August, as the month of entry into force. Candidates should note both dates together: the agreement in force from 15 July 2026, and the Dialogue held on 29 September 2026 in London.

The correct answer is London. The fourth round of the India-UK Financial Markets Dialogue took place in London on 29 September 2026, and the joint statement adopted after it was put out on 7 October 2026. The meeting was led by senior officials of India's Ministry of Finance and of the United Kingdom's HM Treasury, and the city also figured in the talks in its own right, because both sides recognised London as the leading offshore trading hub for the Indian rupee. Mumbai is wrong because the Dialogue was not hosted in India at all this round, although Mumbai houses SEBI, one of the Indian regulators that attended. New Delhi is wrong for the same reason: the Indian capital sent the delegation but did not host the meeting. Edinburgh is wrong because, although it lies in the United Kingdom, the statement names London as the venue and as the offshore rupee centre.