IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Alliance of Digital India Foundation - Petitioner
Versus
Competition Commission of India and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 4599 of 2023 & CM Appl. No. 17575 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relevant procedural history and facts (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's grievance of non-compliance (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner's need for urgency in relief (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legal arguments on interpretation of act (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. respondent arguments on cci composition and quorum (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 29) |
| 6. court's interpretation of judicial procedure (Para 64 , 66 , 68 , 72) |
| 7. doctrine of necessity not applicable (Para 86 , 90) |
| 8. conclusion of petition and directive to cci (Para 93 , 94) |
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following prayers:—
(b) Issue an appropriate order/direction providing interim relief to the Petitioner, directing the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to keep the implementation of Google's UCB in abeyance, pending adjudication by the CCI on Petitioners application and maintain the status quo (i.e. no commission is to be charged when transaction happen via other payment processors mode (non GPBS mode) as it exists now”
2. The following facts shorn of all unnecessary details and germane and relevant to decide the dispute are as under:—
2.2 Thereafter, on 09.11.2020., the CCI issued a prima facie order under Section 26(1) of the Act in Case No. 7 of 2020 directing the Office of the Director General (DG) to conduct an investigation against Google.
2.3 Subsequently, on 29.06.2021., a second informant (Match Group Inc.) (Respondent No. 6 herein) filed information before the CCI against Google under Section 19 of the Act (Second Information). The Commission registered the Second Information as Case No. 14 of 2021. The same was followed by an application for interim relief filed by Alliance of Digital India Foundation (Petitioner) against Google on 06.10.2021. (First IRA) in Case No. 07 of 2020 and Case No. 14 of 2021, seeking ad-interim relief restraining Google from implementing its Payments Policy under Section 33 of the Act.
2.4 That thereafter, on 18.10.2021., Petitioner filed an information against Google under Section 19 of the Act (Third Information). The CCI registered the Third Information as Case No. 35 of 2021, which was finally clubbed by with Case Nos. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 vide its Order dated 02.11.2021..
2.5 Consequently, from 16.03.2022. till 01.09.2022., the proceedings of these cases moved in full swing by filing of an investigation report by the DG, which was subsequently followed by its response filed by Google, and the detailed hearings conducted thereafter by the CCI. All such proceedings reached its final conclusion by CCI and the matters were reserved for orders.
2.6 After the conclusion of CCI oral hearings and when the final order was reserved, Google swiftly announced a user choice billing (UCB) pilot program for non-gaming app developers in India on 01.09.2022..
2.7 The CCI passed the final order in Case No. 07 of 2020, 14 of 2021 and 35 of 2021, which was challenged by Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by filing a statutory appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
2.8 Therein, Google, on
Cadd Systems and Services Private Limited v. Competition Commission of India
B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka
State of Gujarat v. Utility Users Welfare Association
Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Union of India
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
Janta Land Promoters Private Limited v. Union of India
Lachmi Narain v. Union of India
Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. Mohanjit Singh
An order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is administrative, only initiating an investigation without affecting parties' rights.
The court ruled that the requirement for CCI approval under Section 31(4) of the IBC is directory, allowing for post-approval compliance to avoid stalling the CIRP.
Receipt of incriminating cartel emails without protest constitutes tacit participation; Section 48 penalties on individuals' income mirror firm turnover proportion under Section 27; Section 3(3) cart....
The Competition Commission of India must establish a prima facie case before ordering an investigation; failure to do so renders its orders void.
The judgment establishes that the CCI must have a principled prima facie basis to initiate an investigation under the Competition Act, failing which such directives lack jurisdiction and can be quash....
High Courts should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with ongoing statutory inquiries at an intermediate stage. When a statute provides a comprehensive mechanis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.