38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, October 03, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

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.

 

[READ JUDGMENT]



Share this article:



Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

sc-allows-manufacturing-of-green-crackers-in-delhi-subject-to-no-sale
Trending Judiciary
SC allows manufacturing of green crackers in Delhi, subject to no sale

SC allows certified manufacturers to produce green crackers in Delhi, but bans their sale in NCR till further orders, balancing pollution and livelihoods.

27 September, 2025 01:23 AM
kerala-hc-directs-comprehensive-snakebite-prevention-guidelines-for-schools
Trending Judiciary
Kerala HC Directs Comprehensive Snakebite Prevention Guidelines For Schools [Read Order]

Kerala High Court directs comprehensive snakebite prevention and management guidelines for schools, ensuring safety, awareness, and emergency response.

30 September, 2025 08:46 PM
sc-orders-two-judicial-officers-to-go-for-seven-days-training-for-flawed-bail-order
Trending Judiciary
SC orders two judicial officers to go for seven days training for flawed bail order [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court quashes flawed bail order, directs two Delhi judges to undergo 7-day special training on judicial conduct and bail rulings.

30 September, 2025 09:58 PM
sc-seeks-reply-from-iit-delhi-kharagpur-on-plea-to-transfer-student-due-to-mental-health-condition
Trending Judiciary
SC seeks reply from IIT Delhi, Kharagpur on plea to transfer student due to mental health condition [Read Order]

SC seeks reply from IIT Delhi & Kharagpur on plea for transfer of B Arch student citing mental health needs, AIIMS proximity & Article 21 rights.

30 September, 2025 11:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email