TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CCI dismisses interim relief applications against Google under Section 33 for alleged Section 4 violations due to insufficient prima facie case</h1> <h3>In Re: People Interactive India Private Limited, Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd., Mebigo Labs Private Limited, Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation, Indian Digital Media Industry Foundation, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Google Ireland Ltd</h3> In Re: People Interactive India Private Limited, Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google India Private Limited, Google India Digital Services Pvt. Ltd., Mebigo ... Issues:1. Interim relief prayers under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 against Google.2. Nexus between relief sought and issues under investigation.3. Criteria for granting interim relief as per legal principles.Analysis:The judgment pertains to interim relief prayers filed against Google under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Competition Commission of India had earlier found a prima facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act against Google and ordered an investigation. The Informants, including People Interactive India Private Limited (PIIPL) and Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), sought various interim reliefs related to Google's payment policies and app store guidelines. The Commission considered the relief prayers in light of the statutory scheme and legal principles governing the grant of interim relief.The Supreme Court's guidance in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. emphasized that interim relief should be granted sparingly and under compelling circumstances, with a high degree of satisfaction that contravention of the Act has occurred or is about to occur. The Commission noted the need for a clear nexus between relief sought and issues under investigation. It found that some relief prayers did not align with the specific issues outlined for investigation, and therefore, could not be granted.Regarding the relief sought to restrain Google from collecting fees for transactions, the Commission acknowledged concerns about Google's fee structure but also recognized the costs associated with maintaining app stores. It highlighted that requiring Google to offer its platform for free could have unintended consequences and impact the platform's functionality. The Commission concluded that the Informants had not demonstrated a strong case for complete restraint on Google from fee collection.Furthermore, the Commission found that the Informants failed to meet the criteria for granting interim relief as per legal principles. They did not establish a higher level of prima facie case or show irreparable harm that could not be remedied through compensation. The balance of convenience was also not in favor of the Informants. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the applications for interim relief, emphasizing that the order did not express a final opinion on the case's merits, and the investigation by the Director General would proceed impartially.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interim relief prayers, emphasizing the need for a strong nexus between relief sought and issues under investigation, adherence to legal principles for granting interim relief, and consideration of the broader implications of relief measures on the market dynamics.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
