Play Store Payment Policy: Karnataka High Court Upholds Maintainability Of Google India's Plea To Restrain CCI From Exposing Its Confidential Info

A single judge bench of Justice SG Pandit further extended the interim order passed earlier restraining the Commission from divulging the information of the company available with it and directed the respondent to file its objections to the petition within two weeks.

A copy of the detailed order is awaited.

The application filed by Alliance of Digital Foundation had said 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 had 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 was mentioned that the functioning of Google Play Billing system, which is the subject matter of the inquiry by CCI, is managed by parties 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, it was argued.

The application also said 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 application was opposed by the Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium and Sajan Povvayya appearing for Google.

Google India had 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. The company submitted that "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.

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