E-Paper
SC favours sending pleas over CCI probe against Amazon, Flipkart to Karnataka HC
The top court has told the Karnataka high court not to proceed with the hearing on petitions filed by e-commerce giants till January 6
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said it was prima facie inclined to send all petitions challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) anti-trust probe against e-commerce giants Amazon and Flipkart for alleged malpractices to the Karnataka high court.
“Prima facie, we are of the view that all writ petitions be transferred and heard by the Karnataka high court,” a bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka and Manmohan said. The court, however, told the Karnataka high court not to proceed with the hearing on the petitions filed by e-commerce giants till January 6.
Monday’s order came on a transfer petition moved by CCI challenging the various petitions filed against its ongoing anti-trust probe before the high courts of Delhi, Karnataka, Madras, Punjab & Haryana, Telangana and Allahabad. In these proceedings, many high courts stayed the probe which impeded the commission from completing its enquiry. CCI asked that either the cases pending before the high courts be clubbed and placed before the top court or be marked to the Delhi high court.
Issuing notice on CCI’s petition, the bench, “Before we pass order of transfer, the petitioners should also be before us.” The court granted CCI two days to amend its petition and add all petitioners who have approached the HC.
Attorney general R Venkataramani appearing for CCI informed the court that it had no objection to Karnataka high court hearing the case.
On Friday when the matter was last heard, the top court told the AG that the commission could not expect to get “special treatment” since the matter before the Karnataka high court had substantially progressed. CCI initially objected to the case being heard by a single judge bench and preferred Delhi HC where a two-judge bench was holding the hearings, effectively cutting one layer of appeal for the petitioners.
“There are 26 cases as of now before the high courts. More cases are likely to get filed as 44 investigations by us are ongoing,” Venkataramani told the bench on Monday. On Friday, AG said the petitions in the HCs were being litigated by Amazon and Flipkart as these retailers sell their products on the two online platforms.
The e-retailers were represented in court by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, S Muralidhar, Sajam Poovayya who pointed out that 13 petitions are heard by Karnataka HC bench, which is nearly half of the current batch of cases. Barring CCI, submissions by the petitioners have concluded.
As the matter was listed before the high court on Tuesday, the top court restrained the Karnataka HC from proceeding in the case till January 6 when the SC will take up the case again.
CCI had reasoned that the issue pending before the HCs raises substantial questions of law that can be addressed authoritatively by the top court.
“The underlying subject matter of inquiry before the petitioner of e-commerce services offered by two of the major platforms, is of great general importance. If any anticompetitive activity is allowed to continue on these platforms, it harms and affects lakhs, if not crores, of ordinary people each passing day as these are the ultimate consumers on these platforms.”
The matter was brought before CCI by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh alleging various infractions under the Competition Act, 2002 taking place on two of the major e-commerce platforms – Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and Flipkart Internet Services Pvt Ltd.
After registering the case, the commission in January 2020 directed investigation by the Director General under the Act.
In the order under challenge passed on August 28 this year, the DG’s probe reports were considered and the non-confidential aspects of the report were supplied to the opposite parties. Challenging this order, the e-retailers hosting their products on the two e-commerce platforms claimed that the commission has changed their “status” from third party to opposite party without giving them a hearing.
