Multiple writ petitions by e-commerce
New Delhi: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has told the Supreme Court that Multiple writ petitions filed in high courts by companies including Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd, Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd and Rocket Kommerce LLP indirectly intend to restrict the regulator’s investigative powers.
These Multiple writ petitions effectively stalled CCI’s proceedings in the case of alleged anti-competitive behaviour of e-commerce platforms Amazon and Flipkart as the high courts of Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana and Madras had granted interim stay on CCI’s proceedings in favour of the companies.
CCI filed a petition filed with the Supreme Court earlier this month seeking to transfer all these 24 cases to the apex court. The regulator said that the multiple writ petitions filed by e-commerce players indirectly intend to restrict the powers of CCI’s Director General to investigate only against a party that was identified by the Commission while ordering a probe, two persons informed about the development said.
“This will lead to a situation where the Director General, during investigation, in spite of finding cogent evidence to investigate any other party will not be able to do so, which will be against the scheme of the Competition Act and the interest of justice,” CCI said in its petition to the apex court, one of the persons quoted above said, citing the filing made by the regulator.
First impression view
CCI orders investigation into parties for anti-competitive conduct based on a first impression view of the matter, either on a complaint or on its own accord.
The Multiple writ petitions filed by e-commerce players in High Courts raises the question whether CCI’s Director General can investigate a ‘third party’ who was not specifically identified as ‘an opposite party’ while ordering an investigation. The petitions also raises the question whether such a party has any right of notice and hearing before being called upon to participate in the inquiry as an opposite party.
Amazon declined to offer any comment. Queries emailed to CCI, Flipkart, Samsung and Rocket Kommerce on Friday seeking comments for the story remained unanswered at the time of publishing.
Mint was the first to report on 14 November that CCI will move the Supreme Court to break logjam in the Amazon, Flipkart anti-trust case, which stemmed from a reference made by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh, the informant, who alleged violation of provisions of competition law.
Procedural lapse alleged
The e-commerce players that moved high courts alleged procedural lapse in CCI’s investigation report confirming anti-competitive conduct, and argued that information was initially sought from them as third parties, but they were later treated as opposite parties without the Commission’s permission.
CCI claimed that the Multiple writ petitions filed by the e-commerce players in high courts were “nothing but an attempt to scuttle the well-established procedure of investigation laid down” under competition law. If allowed, the writ petitions will interfere with the flexibility of the Director General to carry out investigation in any matter, CCI claimed, the person quoted above said.
The c-commerce sector has become a subject of anti-competitive investigations as conventional retailers continuously raise grievances and step up pressure on the government to scrutinise the behaviour of large e-commerce platforms, which have attracted customers in a big way.