SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 589

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. T Sundar Ramanathan, Mr. Vivek Pandey, Mr. Aman Shankar & Ms. Sukanya Viswanathan.
For the Respondents:Mr. N. Venkataraman, ASG with Ms. Aakanksha Kaul and Ms. Versha Singh, Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Singh Chandhiok, Ms. Avaantika Kakkar, Ms. Deeksha Manchanda, Mr. Kaustav Kundu, Ms. Ruchi Verma, Mr. Tarun Donadi, Ms. Bhavika Chabbra, Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Sayobani Basu & Mr. Abhisar Vidyarthi, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sonam Mathur, Ms. Dinoo Muthappa, Mr. Abir Roy, Mr. Dhruv Dikshit, Mr. Vivek Pandey, Mr. Anchit Nayyar, Mr. Aman Shankar and Ms. Sukanya Viswanathan.

Headnote:(A) Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 15, 19, 22, and 42 - Doctrine of necessity - Writ petition filed by a foundation seeking directions against non-compliance by Google of CCI orders - CCI currently consisting of only two members - Court held that the CCI’s proceedings not invalidated despite vacancies or defects in its constitution, as per Section 15 - Court directed CCI to adjudicate pending applications before launching the User Choice Billing System (UCB). (Paras 64-94)

(B) Jurisdiction - It was emphasized that vacancies do not affect jurisdiction as long as the provisions of the Act permit functioning - Doctrine of Necessity applicable only in defect situations where quorum is lacking not pursuant to legislative way. (Paras 83-89)

(C) Urgency - Petitioner claimed urgency in adjudication due to scheduled UCB launch, but the court found sufficient basis for directing an expeditious hearing without compromising judicial integrity. (Paras 11, 93)

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:—

    “(a) Hold that the CCI can validly invoke doctrine of necessity in this case for initiating non-compliance proceedings against Google and issue an appropriate order/direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to Respondent no. 1 for timely adjudication of the interim relief application and the application under Section 42 of the Competition Act, 2002, as filed by the Petitioner; regarding non-effective compliance by Google of the CCI's final order dated 25.10.2022. and to keep UCB's implementation in abeyance till the adjudication by the CCI, and/or;

    (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:—

    2.1 On 20.02.2020., an anonymous informant filed an information before the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “CCI”) under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) against Respondent No. 2 - 5 (collectively referred to as ‘Google’) (First Information). The CCI registered the First Information as Case No. 07 of 2020.

    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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top