Karnataka HC To Hear Objection To Maintainability of Petition Filed By Google India On July 8

A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit till then extended the interim order passed earlier restraining the Commission from divulging the information of the company available with it.

The application filed by Alliance of Digital Foundation says that, "No part of the cause of action as required under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 of the Constitution of India arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and hence a writ before the Karnataka High Court is unsustainable."

Further it is said that the petitioners have been participating in the proceedings pending before the CCI in New Delhi, the impugned order was passed in New Delhi, the copy of the same was; served on the Petitioners' counsel in New Delhi and therefore no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Court.

Moreover it is mentioned that the functioning of Google Play' Billing system, which is the subject matter of the inquiry by CCI, is managed by 2 & 3, respondents who don't reside within the territorial limits of the High Court. Mere existence of the registered office of the Petitioners in Bengaluru does not, by itself confer jurisdiction on the Karnataka High Court in the absence of material facts of constitution a cause of action within the territorial limits of this Court.

The application also says that in absence of any other pleading to show cause of action, the mere fact that the address of the Petitioner or the registered office of the Petitioner is in Bengaluru has no bearing on the jurisdiction of this court.

The reliance of the petitioner to a previous petition having been filed before the court on 27 December 2021 and hence this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction. It is said that the previous writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo which clearly mentioned that all factual and legal contentions by parties shall remain open. The R2 had raised the issue of jurisdiction in the said writ petition too. The issue of territoriality was not adjudicated therein due to the writ petition being disposed of.

Google India Private Ltd has approached the court after an order was passed by the Commission dated April 18, allowing the company's confidential information to be shared with the respondent 2.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium and Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the company, relying on regulation 35 (8) of the the Competition Commission of India (General) Amendment Regulations, 2022, had earlier submitted that, "The CCI in its order dated 18-04-2022 has permitted divulging of confidential information to the respondent 2, which is contrary to the regulations."

Further it was said, "Regulation 35 (6) be read and harmoniously interpreted with regulation 35 (8), which is an overriding provision." It was also contended that in light of the confidential information, whether the requisites of 35 (8) have been fulfilled by CCI, by applying its mind and recording its finding in terms of the conditions being fulfilled is a matter that is to be decided by this court."

Advocate Abir Roy and Gautamaditya Sridhara appearing for the respondent no 2, had earlier said, "The undertaking given under regulation 35 (7) by him is a solemn undertaking given which they are bound by and needs to be taken note off." Roy even raised the question of maintainability of the petition.

Senior Advocate Harish Narasappa appearing for CCI had earlier submitted that subsequent representation has been made by the petitioner on the same line, which is awaiting order to be passed by commission.

Following which the court in its order dated May 10, had restrained the Competition Commission of India (CCI) from divulging confidential information of Google India Pvt Ltd to the complainant Alliance Of Digital India Foundation

Case Title: GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & others versus COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & others

Case No: WP 9399/2022