The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred when a complete code exists under specific statutes, such as the PSS Act and the Competition Act, which provide mechanisms for dispute resolution.

JUDGMENT :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

Prayer: Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules to set aside the decree and judgment dated 03.08.2023 in A.No.3101 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.120 of 2023 and consequentially direct the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras to restore the Suit in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.120 of 2023.

The present appellants are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with their original status in the plaints.

2. The plaintiffs instituted suits seeking a declaration that the Google Payments Terms of Service-Seller (IN) posted on 02.06.2022, Payment Policies, Policies relating to Service Fees, Terms and Conditions, posted by the defendants' on its websites/portals/ webpages on various dates, including the Blog-post dated 17.05.2023, all relating to the implementation of Google Play Billing System (GPBS)/User Choice Billing (UCB)/Consumption-Based Model vis-a-vis the Mobile Application as illegal and unenforceable. The plaintiffs further sought a declaration that the definition of “Authorized Provider” and Clauses 15.3 of the Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA), effective as of 03.10.2022, as unconscionable, illegal and unenforceable and for a consequential relief for permanent injunction.

3. The defendants appeared in the suits and filed applications seeking rejection of the plaints purportedly under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on the ground that the suit is barred in view of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 [for brevity, “the Act of 2002”] and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 [for brevity, “the PSS Act, 2007”]. The learned Single Judge allowed the application filed by the defendants and rejected the plaints, inter alia observing that the plaints filed by the plaintiffs are barred by Section 61 of the Act of 2002. The plaintiffs have assailed the said judgment and decree in the instant case.

4. As all these appeals are based on common set of facts and involve common question of law, to avoid rigmarole, are decided by this common judgment.

5. We heard Mr.P.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Arun C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants/plaintiffs.

6. The substratum of the matter is whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted in view of Act of 2002 and the PSS Act, 2007. The plaintiffs' horizon of contention could be culled out as under:

(i) The defendant is a system provider. Suit would lie against the system provider for breach of the provisions of the PSS Act, 2007, contractual rights, declaratory relief and other reliefs. The plaintiffs have averred violation of the PSS Act, 2007 r/w the Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateways, 2020 by the defendants. The violations referred to by the plaintiffs are:

(a) Violation of Section 10-A of the PSS Act, 2007;

(b) Failure to comply with the settlement period prescribed under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines;

(c) Commission for payment processing not being charged at a pre-determined rate;

(d) Illegal debits by the defendants from the Escrow Account; and

(e) Co-mingling of business while settling funds with the appellants.

(ii) The PSS Act, 2007 is not a “complete code” or that the RBI is a self-contained machinery which can grant all the remedies that a civil court can grant. No pleadings are raised by the defendants that the civil courts' jurisdiction is ousted by Section 28 of the PSS Act, 2007, nor appropriate pleadings have been made alleging ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts by referring to Sections 17, 18 and 24 of the PSS Act, 2007.

(iii) Section 17 of the PSS Act, 2007 does not contemplate an adjudicatory mechanism for