Google Moves Delhi High Court Challenging Single Judge Order Directing CCI To Consider Applications Of Start-Ups Against New Payment Policy

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appearing for Google mentioned the appeal before a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad.

Sethi sought urgent listing of the matter today and apprised the court that the CCI is to hear the matter at 2:30 PM.

“The hearing is today at 2:30 PM and a decision is to be taken. There is a lack of quorum,” Sethi submitted.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Alliance of Digital India Foundation said that the LPA has not been served upon them yet.

However, the court refused to list the matter today.

The appeal has been filed against the order of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela who disposed of a plea moved by Alliance of Digital India Foundation, against Google’s new policy. The plea also sought direction on the tech giant to keep the same in abeyance till the issue is adjudicated by Competition Commission of India.

“There is no impediment, legal or otherwise, in directing the CCI to take up the applications under Section 42 of Competition Act as filed by the petitioner for hearing and considering the same in accordance with law on or before 26 April, 2023. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only to the extent of deciding the present lis before this court and shall not tantamount to any expression on the merits of the case and the same is therefore, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties to be taken at the appropriate proceeding,” Justice Gedela had said.

The single judge also observed that the proceedings before the Competition Commission of India would not be vitiated due to vacancy or any defect in its constitution.

“Merely because of a defect or a vacancy in the constitution of the CCI, the CCI cannot be considered as a statutory authority not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints or other proceedings pending before it. Any interpretation, other than the aforesaid, would render the provisions of Section 15 otiose and which could not possibly be the intention of the Legislature either,” it had added.