38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, April 13, 2024

The Apex Court upholds the findings of CCI and NCLAT regarding the complaints of cartelisation and anti-competitive practices by cab regulators Ola and Uber [READ JUDGMENT]

By Dev Kumar Patel      17 December, 2020 05:53 PM      0 Comments
The Apex Court upholds the findings of CCI and NCLAT regarding the complaints of cartelisation and anti-competitive practices by cab regulators Ola and Uber [READ JUDGMENT]

The Supreme Court on December 15, 2020 upheld the Competition Commission of India (CCI) order which dismissed the complaints of cartelisation and anti-competitive practices by cab regulators Ola and Uber.

A three-judge bench of Justices RF Nariman, KM Joseph, and Krishna Murari also set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) finding that the informant in the case, Samir Agarwal, had no locus standi to move to the CCI.

Proceedings in CCI:

  • Samir Agarwal, an independent practitioner of the law sought that the Competition Commission of India should initiate an inquiry, under section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, into the alleged anti-competitive conduct of  Ola and Uber
  • He further alleged that they entered into price-fixing agreements in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, and engaged in resale price maintenance in contravention of section 3(1) read with section 3(4)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002.
  • It was alleged that the pricing algorithm used by Ola and Uber artificially manipulates supply and demand, guaranteeing higher fares to drivers who would otherwise compete against one and another. Cooperation between drivers, through the Ola and Uber apps, results in concerted action under section 3(3)(a) read with section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
  • It was held by the Commission view that there is no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 has been made out and the matter is accordingly closed herewith under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
  • CCI stated that on the basis of personalised information of riders along with other factors including traffic situation, festivals, etc., prices were fixed determining the demand-supply situation.

Proceedings in NCLAT:

  • Aggrieved by the Order of the CCI,he filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
  • NCLAT while dismissing the appeal recorded that the point as to resale price maintenance was not pressed before it, after which it delved into the locus standi of the Appellant to move the CCI


Supreme Court Observations:

Following this, he moved to Supreme Court wherein the bench discussed various provision of Competition Act, 2020, and Consumer Protection Act, 1986before dismissing the appeal.

The bench also discussed provisions of Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 and observed that “any person” may provide information to the CCI, which may then act upon it in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this regard, the definition of “person” in section 2(l) of the Act, set out hereinabove, is an inclusive one and is extremely wide, including individuals of all kinds and every artificial juridical person.

The bench pointed out that the provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 is in the context of a particular advocate being penalized for professional or other misconduct, which concerned itself with an action in personam, unlike the present case, which is concerned with an action in rem.

Relying to the case of Adi Pherozshah Gandhithat noted that a “person aggrieved” must, in the context of the Act, be understood widely and not be constructed narrowly

"When the CCI performs inquisitorial, as opposed to adjudicatory functions, the doors of approaching the CCI and the appellate authority, i.e., the NCLAT, must be kept wide open in public interest, so as to subserve the high purpose of the act," the bench observed.

The bench dismissed the appeal as the bench did not find any reason to interfere in concurrent findings of fact of the CCI and the NCLAT.



Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Legal Insiders
Two-day conference on April 13-14 on Technology and Dialogue between SC and Singapore

Explore AI's role in law at the India-Singapore Supreme Court conference on technology, enhancing judicial processes and access to justice, April 13-14, 2024.

12 April, 2024 06:16 PM


Trending Judiciary
Very disturbed by latest trend of lawyers commenting on pending cases: CJI

Chief Justice of India urges lawyers to prioritize court and Constitution over political beliefs, expressing concern over trend of commenting on pending cases.

08 April, 2024 11:19 AM
Trending Judiciary
Court rejects plea for interim bail to BRS leader K Kavitha

Delhi court rejects interim bail plea for BRS leader K Kavitha in money laundering case related to Delhi liquor scam. ED opposes bail.

08 April, 2024 12:14 PM
Trending Judiciary
Centre questions growing tendency among States to approach SC for funds

The Centre questions the growing trend of states approaching the Supreme Court for funds, citing timing and advocating for resolution through dialogue.

08 April, 2024 03:58 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to Centre on plea to safeguard interests of intersex children

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on PIL for safeguarding intersex children's interests and regulating medical interventions. Details inside.

08 April, 2024 04:35 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email