TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Mr. Arvind Srinivas For the Appellant in O.S.A.(CAD) No.102 of 2023: Mr.Arun C.Mohan Assisted by Mr.Abir Roy, Ms.Shruthi Srinivasan, Mr.Karthik Selvaraj and Mr.Aman Shankar For the Respondents 1 to 7/Cross Objectors in O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.97, 99, 100, 108, 109 and 110 of 2023: Mr.P.S.Raman Senior Counsel for Mr. G.Balasubramanian for M/s.Leela & Co. For the Respondents 1 to 7/Cross Objectors in O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.98, 102, 103, 104, 105 & 106 of 2023 and Cross Objection Nos.58, 59, 61, 64 & 68 of 2023: Mr. Sajan Poovayya Senior Counsel for Mr. G.Balasubramanian for M/s. Leela & Co. Assisted by: Mr. S.Anand, Mr. Jesin Prabhu George, Mr. S.Girish, Mr. P.Arun Kumar, Mr. Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Ms. Sayobani Basu, Mr. Raghav Seth, Ms. Shubhangni Jain, Mr. Ankitesh Ojha, Ms. Maithreyi Canthaswamy Sharma, Mr. Krishna Sumanth, Ms. Lakshana Viravalli, Mr. Raghav Seth and Mr. Chetan Chawla COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The present appellants are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with their original status in the plaints. 2. The plaintiffs instituted suits seeking a declaration that the Googl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he violations referred to by the plaintiffs are: (a) Violation of Section 10-A of the PSS Act, 2007; (b) Failure to comply with the settlement period prescribed under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines; (c) Commission for payment processing not being charged at a pre-determined rate; (d) Illegal debits by the defendants from the Escrow Account; and (e) Co-mingling of business while settling funds with the appellants. (ii) The PSS Act, 2007 is not a "complete code" or that the RBI is a self-contained machinery which can grant all the remedies that a civil court can grant. No pleadings are raised by the defendants that the civil courts' jurisdiction is ousted by Section 28 of the PSS Act, 2007, nor appropriate pleadings have been made alleging ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts by referring to Sections 17, 18 and 24 of the PSS Act, 2007. (iii) Section 17 of the PSS Act, 2007 does not contemplate an adjudicatory mechanism for resolution of disputes. Under Section 17 of the PSS Act, 2007, the RBI may suo motu issue directions when the prerequisites stipulated under Sub-Sections (a) and (b) of Section 17 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon other special statutes such as the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 to contend that under the said Act, a rent tribunal is constituted and is vested with the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for recording evidences, issuing commission for local investigation, powers to execute its orders, to review its decision and specifically providing that the proceedings before the rent court or rent tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings. Similarly, reliance was placed upon other special statutes such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997. (vii) It is submitted that the threshold to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court is high. In the absence of the powers to receive pleadings and evidence, discover and inspect documents, prefer an appeal, summon witnesses and conduct cross-examination, the PSS Act, 2007 cannot be considered to be a complete code and thereby oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. Further, Section 24(4) of the PSS Act, 2007 provides for "summary disposal". The same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and complete? By applying the test laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. 1993 (3) SCC 161, the PSS Act, 2007 neither creates a special right/liability for any of the parties herein nor can it provide an adequate remedy vis- a-vis the skeletal and opaque adjudicatory mechanism prescribed under Section 24(3) of the PSS Act, 2007. (xi) It is contended by the plaintiffs that Sections 61 and 62 of the Act of 2002 would not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 62 of the Act of 2002 would enable the the plaintiffs to approach the civil court seeking appropriate remedy as it states that "the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force". Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Indian Medical Assn. vs. V.P.Shantha (1995) 6 SCC 651, KSL & Industries Ltd. Vs Arihant Threads Ltd. (2015) 1 SCC 166, Mathew Varghese vs M.Amritha Kumar (2014) 5 SCC 610 and Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 88. (xii) Reliance is also placed on the judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e required to be adjudicated by the civil court and the same cannot be decided by the Competition Commission of India nor the Reserve Bank of India. It is submitted that the definition of service under the GPTS refers to "payment processing" only. Now, Google has novated unilaterally and said that the price or service fee charged by Google on the Play Store is for whole host of services. This fundamentally alters the very substratum of the contract. The same is illegal. (xvii) It is further contended that presently, all the App developers have contracts with third-party payment processors approved by the Reserve Bank of India, however, with the change brought in by the "authorized payment provider" unilaterally by Google, that freedom is being taken away. Such a conduct is clearly hit by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 [for brevity, "ICA, 1872"]. (xviii) Violation of provisions of the PSS Act, 2007 on the part of the defendants also constitutes a breach of statutory duty. The claim for breach of statutory duty can be maintained even against private bodies/individuals. These issues and mixed questions of law and facts can only be determined by a civil c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he defendants on account of Shaadi's information before the Competition Commission of India, the defendants made contrary submissions to suit their convenience by requesting the Competition Commission of India to defer the proceedings initiated on account of a new information filed under Section 19 and final inquiry under Section 42 of the Act of 2002. In every forum, the defendants are taking contrary pleadings, in what they believe is the same cause of action and citing examples of other ongoing proceedings to stall any judicial determination on the issues. (xxii) The contention of the defendants that the Competition Commission of India can look into the PSS Act, 2007 issues to ascertain abuse of dominance is not correct. The plaints would disclose that it does not contain any averment to seek any of the reliefs or remedies provided for within the scope of the Act of 2002. The reliefs claimed are those under the ICA, 1872 and the PSS Act, 2007. In Combination Registration No.C-2018/05/571 involving Walmart International Holdings, Inc., the Competition Commission of India held that it cannot look into provisions of other laws. In the said case, the matter was relating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order, under Section 26(1) of the Act of 2002, inquiry is said to start. During the inquiry, an application under Section 33 of the Act of 2002, for interim relief, can be filed. The Director General parallelly conducts the investigation in the concerned relevant market and then submits the investigation report to the Competition Commission of India. The Competition Commission of India can either accept the said report and call for written and oral pleadings from the parties concerned or ask the Director General for further investigation. The Competition Commission of India can, after consideration of the investigation report and the pleadings made by the parties, pass a final order under Section 27 of the Act of 2002, in case violation of the provisions of the Act of 2002 is found to be made. (xxvii) Enforcement mechanism for directions passed by the Competition Commission of India in an order passed under Section 27 of the Act of 2002 is covered under Sections 42 and 42A of the Act of 2002. The power to issue interim orders under Section 33 of the Act is during an inquiry and not prior. The inquiry is said to start after an order under Section 26(1) [prima facie order] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India Limited vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors. (2023) SCC Online SC 740 and Texco Marketing (P) Ltd. vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) 1 SCC 428. (xxxii) Forcing the plaintiffs to enter into an unlawful agreement, wherein an unauthorized payment service provider is being forced to be integrated by Google, is clearly a violation of Section 23 of the ICA, 1872. The Competition Commission of India cannot determine the violation of Sections 23 or Section 27 of the ICA, 1872. (xxxiii) The prayer in the plaints seeking a declaration that the pricing under GPBS or UCB is exorbitant can only be granted by a civil court, since the Competition Commission of India cannot be a price regulator. Determination of price is outside the remit of the Competition Commission of India as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Cylinders and Containers vs Union of India (2020) 16 SCC 615. It is the defendants' own stand that the Competition Commission of India cannot determine price. The same was the submission and is culled out in the Competition Commission of India's order. (xxxiv) It is contended that Section 9 of the Code o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Competition Commission of India and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal have jurisdiction to inquire into Google's alleged abuse of dominance and alleged non-compliance with the Competition Commission of India's orders. The cause of action identified in the plaints is premised on the issues determined by the Competition Commission of India order. Reference is made to Sections 4, 42 and 42A of the Act of 2002. Their sole case is that DDA/DPP is imposed through Google's alleged dominance. This applies as much to the alleged breach of the Act of 2002 as it does to the claimed violations of the ICA, 1872. The averments in the plaints are solely on the ground that the defendants occupy the dominant position to gain unfair advantage. (iii) In the plaints, the plaintiffs even asked for the Competition Commission of India's order to be made part and parcel of the plaints, with a leave to make extensive reference to all relevant portions of the Competition Commission of India order. "Matrimony" and "Alliance of Digital Foundation (ADIF)" have filed applications seeking initiation of inquiry under Section 42 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unfair/excessive service fee, the Competition Commission of India found that the service fee not to be in violation of the Act of 2002. (ix) Even the implementation of the UCB pilot has been specifically addressed in the Competition Commission of India's order. The launch of the UCB pilot was considered a mitigating factor of the defendants on the issue of quantum of penalty. The plaintiffs have not filed any appeal contesting these findings of the Competition Commission of India and any further action to re-agitate the same is barred by the principles akin to issue estoppel. (x) The orders of the Competition Commission of India are in rem, therefore are binding on all the plaintiffs. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of R.Subramanian vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13690 to contend that a suit can very well be rejected by a civil court if the party has already approached a particular forum and is re-agitating the same reliefs/issues before the civil court. (xi) Section 61 of the Act of 2002 is a complete bar for exercise of jurisdiction of the civil court. Section 62 of the Act of 2002, reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicated by the RBI, who is the designated regulator under the PSS Act, 2007. The PSS Act, 2007 impliedly bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts to adjudicate on allegations of violation of the Act. (xv) The PSS Act, 2007 defines the right of parties, their corresponding obligations and the consequences of breach in case of violation of the same. The PSS Act, 2007 provides for a mechanism of adjudication of disputes between parties. The PSS Act, 2007 identifies RBI as the designated expert authority for overseeing the implementation and enforcement of the PSS Act, 2007. The RBI is the sole authority empowered to deal with violations of the PSS Act, 2007. The RBI is empowered to pass and enforce directions in respect of any entity, purportedly non-compliant with and/or in violation of the PSS Act, 2007 and directions, guidelines and regulations prescribed thereunder. If the plea of the plaintiffs is accepted that the civil jurisdiction is not impliedly barred, then there is a potential for conflicting opinions by the sectoral regulator and the civil court and to avoid scrutiny of an expert regulator, all parties can embark on "set up litigations" to keep the matters pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai (2005) 10 SCC 760. (xx) It is further submitted that if the law provides for remedy, a machinery and enforcement of the remedy by the same, it provides for a complete code. The parties cannot be allowed to agitate about violation of the PSS Act, 2007 before the civil court, much less, a commercial court. The plaintiffs in their respective plaints, acknowledged that the PSS Act, 2007 allows the RBI to pass appropriate orders under Sections 17 and 18 of the PSS Act, 2007. The plaintiffs further alleged in the plaints that the RBI should have taken suo motu cognizance of these issues under Sections 10, 17 and 18 of the PSS Act, 2007. One of the plaintiffs ("Matrimony"), in its complaint to the RBI dated 17th April, 2023, has itself stated that it is asking the RBI to act on the very same allegations as set out in the plaints and that the RBI has the power to do so under Sections 17 and 18 of the PSS Act, 2007. (xxi) The issues concerning purported breach of the PSS Act, 2007 were raised by the plaintiffs in conjunction with the allegations of abuse of dominance, which have been examined by the Competition Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made in the plaints have to be taken as they are. It is further submitted that Section 24(3) of the PSS Act, 2007 contains an appeal mechanism, in case the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the panel contemplated under Section 24(1) of the PSS Act, 2007. (xxvi) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orrisa (1983) 2 SCC 433 to contend that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute alone must be availed. The Apex Court, while considering similar statutes, has held that there was an implied bar on the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Jithendra Nath Biswas vs. Empire of India and Ceylone Tea and Co. and Anr. (1989) 3 SCC 582 and Anwar vs. Ist ADJ (1986) 4 SCC 21. (xxvii) The RBI is an expert regulator/body, having power to issue directions, guidelines and orders to system participants for proper compliance of the provisions of the PSS Act, 2007 and also has powers to issue further directions and take cognizance of offence punishable und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Svenska Handelman vs. Charge Chrome 1994 (2) SCC 155 and Modi Entertainment vs. WSG 2003 (4) SCC 341 and judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Prashant Hasmukh Manek vs. Ramu Annamalai Ramasamy 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 5869. (xxxii) It is further submitted that the U.S. Federal District Court has upheld the validity and enforceability of Clause 16.8 of the DDA. It is also when experienced business men are involved in commercial contract and they are not of unequal bargaining power, the agreed terms must ordinarily be respected and enforced. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Phulchand Exports Ltd. vs. O.O.O. Pariot (2011) 10 SCC 300. (xxxiii) It is further submitted that reliance on Australian Court's judgment in Epic Games, Inc. vs. Google LLC and Canadian Court's judgment in Douez vs. Facebook, Inc. is misplaced. Douez (supra) is a case between a consumer and a corporation and in Epic Games (supra), claims in the case were entirely statutory, derived from the Australian Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2010. In view thereof, the cross objections may be allowed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expressly and/or impliedly barred under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and the PSS Act, 2007 respectively. 12.2. It is a salutary rule that the civil court has the jurisdiction, unless it is expressly or impliedly barred by any law. The general rule is that the civil courts have jurisdiction to try the suits of civil nature, unless the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly or by implication barred. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, in the case of Dhulabhai etc. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 1968 SCC Online SC 40, has laid down the following seven principles to determine whether the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred to try and entertain a suit of civil nature: (1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunals the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sarial adjudicator of disputes. He serves as an alternative to the adversary system for resolving disputes, especially between citizens and government agencies. An adversarial adjudication necessarily stands on a higher plane than a settlement of a complaint at the instance of an Ombudsman." The proceedings before the Ombudsman cannot oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. As per Section 16(2)(e) of the Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage, if the complaint requires consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence. 14.1. It is an elementary rule of civil jurisprudence that a plaint cannot be rejected in part. For applying the principles under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vis-a-vis, the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, if a plaint in entirety is capable of rejection, then only the plaint can be rejected. If any part of the relief cannot be granted under the other Acts or law, then the plaint cannot be rejected in part. In view thereof, it is not necessary to refer to the case laws relied by the plaintiffs on their side. 14.2. Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies to those....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have "Google Play Services" for its operations and will, by extension, have "Google Play Store" pre-installed. The Google Play Store is an unavoidable and indispensable trading partner for an App Developer, particularly in India. 16.3. The plaintiff, in paragraph 22 of the plaint, contends that any App Developer in India, who wishes to be enlisted in the Google Play Store, is required to accept all non-negotiable terms and conditions set out in the digital version of Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA) of the third defendant therein, which is filled with one-sided and arbitrary clauses. In case of refusal on the part of an App Developer to accept the aforesaid DDA, the App of the said App Developer shall not be enlisted in Google Play Store. 16.4. In paragraph 24 of the plaint, the plaintiff refers to the order passed by the Competition Commission of India dated 25.10.2022 against defendants 1, 2, 6 and 7, while making extensive references to defendants 3 and 5. It has quoted the order passed by the Competition Commission of India. 16.5. In paragraph 25 of the plaint, the plaintiff avers that instead of choosing to comply with the directions of the Competition Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16.9. The plaintiff further avers about the violation of Clause 8 (Settlement and Escrow Account Management) of the RBI Guidelines, which states that "8.4.1. Wherein PA is responsible for delivery of goods/services the payment to the merchant shall not be later than on Ts+1 basis; 8.4.2. Where merchant is responsible for delivery, the payment to the merchant shall not be later than on Td+1 basis; 8.4.3. Where the agreement with the merchant provides for keeping the amount by the PA till expiry of refund period, the payment to the merchant shall be not later than on Tr+1 basis." While the said timelines are applied to a transaction, on the contrary, Clause 12 of the above Service Seller Agreement contemplates that, "if the seller's service account is linked to any Google Marketplace pursuant to this Section 12, or if the Seller uses the Service to process Google Payments for digital goods, GPC or GPC's affiliates acting on its behalf will use commercially reasonable efforts to electronically transfer funds for payment transactions submitted for capture by seller within a calendar month to seller's settlement account before close of business on the 15th day of the followi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....describable hardship to the plaintiff. The Reserve Bank of India, being the Regulator under the PSS Act, 2007, ought to have taken suo motu cognizance of the conduct of the defendants and taken immediate steps to restrain the defendants from implementing the above arbitrary policies and also to issue appropriate directions/guidelines to the Payment System, System Participants, Payment Aggregators and to the System Provider. The RBI did not come forward to initiate any action in this regard. 16.16. In paragraph 66, the plaintiff alleges the dominance of the Google Play Store and exercise of undue influence by the defendants on the plaintiff to get unfair advantage, amounting to unconscionablity. 16.17. In paragraph 71 of the plaint, the plaint refers to the gaining unfair advantage by using dominant position, as such, violating the provisions of the ICA, 1872. In the same paragraph, it refers to the order dated 25.10.2022 of the Competition Commission of India coming down heavily of such abusive and dominant practices adopted by the defendants. The plaintiff further avers that the order of the Competition Commission of India may be treated as part and parcel of the plaint, wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as pricing as YouTube is not paying the service fee as being imposed on other apps covered in the GPBS requirements. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(a) (ii) of the Act. 392.3. mandatory imposition of GPBS disturbs innovation incentives and the ability of both the payment processors as well as app developers to undertake technical development and innovate and thus, tantamount to limiting technical development in the market for in-app payment processing services. Thus, Google is found to be in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. 392.4. mandatory imposition of GPBS by Google, also results in denial of market access for payment aggregators as well as app developers, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. 392.5. practices followed by Google results in leveraging its dominance in market for licensable mobile OS and app stores for Android OS, to protect its position in the downstream markets, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. 392.6. different methodologies used by Google to integrate its own UPI app vis-à-vis other rival UPI ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction/consumer data of apps generated and acquired through GPBS, shall not be leveraged by Google to further its competitive advantage. Google shall also provide access to the app developer of the data that has been generated through the concerned app, subject to adequate safeguards, as highlighted in this order. 395.6. Google shall not impose any condition (including price related condition) on app developers, which is unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory or disproportionate to the services provided to the app developers. 395.7. Google shall ensure complete transparency in communicating to app developers, services provided, and corresponding fee charged. Google shall also publish in an unambiguous manner the payment policy and criteria for applicability of the fee(s). 395.8. Google shall not discriminate against other apps facilitating payment through UPI in India vis-à-vis its own UPI app, in any manner. 396. The anti-competitive clauses of different policies of Google, as identified in this order, shall not be enforced by Google, with immediate effect. 397. Google, however, is allowed three months from the date of receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in the markets in India. 21.2. Section 4 of the Act of 2002 prohibits an enterprise or group from abusing its dominant position. There shall be an abuse of dominant position if the enterprise or group directly or indirectly imposes unfair or discriminatory (i) condition in purchase or sale of goods or services; or (ii) price in purchase or sale (including predatory price) of goods or service. Under Section 19 of the Act of 2002, the Commission may inquire into any alleged contravention of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 or Sub-Section (1) of Section 4, either on its own motion or on receipt of any information. 21.3. Section 21-A of the Act of 2002 provides that where in the course of a proceeding before the Commission an issue is raised by any party that any decision, which the Commission has taken during such proceeding or proposes to take, is or would be contrary to any provision of the Act of 2002 whose implementation is entrusted to a Statutory Authority, then the Commission may mak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case is that the defendant Google is in a dominant position and by exercising its dominant position has imposed certain conditions, which are unconscionable and hit by Section 23 of the ICA, 1872. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The same is an accepted position. If a party abuses its dominant position, then the Commission can take cognizance of the same as referred to in Section 4 of the Act of 2002. Under Section 27 of the Act of 2002, the Commission can direct that the agreements shall stand modified to the extent and in the manner as may be specified in the order by the Commission. 23. The Commission can also injunct a party, abusing the dominant position, to discontinue and to not re-enter such agreements and or discontinue such abusing of dominant position. The Commission also has got powers to pass such other orders or issue such directions as it may deem fit. The Commission, if it comes to the conclusion that the defendant has abused its dominant position, can pass multifarious orders and grant relief to the plaintiffs. The same would be within the ambit and jurisdiction of the Commission under the Act of 2002. 24.1. One of the arguments of the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at "primarily the jurisdiction of the forums/Commissions is to grant damages. In that event, a complainant feels that he will have a better and effective remedy in a civil court as he may have to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file a suit in an appropriate civil court or may take recourse to some other remedies as provided for in other statutes". 26. Section 62 of the Act of 2002 would apply to those cases, wherein the Competition Commission of India does not have the power or authority under the Act of 2002 to pass orders. In that case, the provisions of other statutes are not barred. 27. Section 62 of the Act of 2002 will have to be read to mean, "will not negate Section 61 of the Act of 2002, which specifically bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters to be dealt with by the Competition Commission of India". 28. Sections 61 and 62 of the Act of 2002 should be read in conjunction to give a holistic meaning to the applicability of these provisions. Merely because Section 62 states that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, it cannot be interp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma facie conclusion that the IDOs have indulged in anti-competitive practices, CCI can be activated to investigate the matter going by the criteria laid down in the relevant provisions of the Competition Act and take it to its logical conclusion." 29.2. It would appear that, Section 21A of the Act of 2002 has been introduced in the Act of 2002 by way of an amendment with effect from 24.09.2007. We have referred that Section 21A of the Act of 2002 empowers the Commission to make reference to a statutory authority, where in the course of proceeding before the Commission, an issue is raised by any party that any decision which the Commission has taken during such proceeding or proposes to take, is or would be contrary to any provision of the Act, whose implementation is entrusted to a statutory authority. The Commission also may suo motu make reference to the statutory authority. As such, Section 21A of the Act of 2002 strikes a balance, which the Apex Court observed in the case of Competition Commission of India vs Bharati Airtel Lmt. and Ors. (supra). 30. The grievance raised by the plaintiffs can be dealt with by the Commission under the Act of 2002 and it is not beyond the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction of the civil court. As has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the RBI is an expert and a regulator. It is appropriate that the expert regulator decides the issue between the parties in case of violation of the provisions of the PSS Act, 2007. 32. The amended Section 21-A of the Act of 2002 provides that "Where in the course of a proceeding before the Commission an issue is raised by any party that any decision which, the Commission has taken during such proceeding or proposes to take, is or would be contrary to any provision of this Act whose implementation is entrusted to a statutory authority, then the Commission may make a reference in respect of such issue to the statutory authority". As such, before the Competition Commission of India, if an issue would arise of a party contravening the provisions of the other Acts, whose implementation is entrusted to a statutory authority, then the Commission may make a reference in respect of such issue to the statutory authority. This is with the view to avoid conflicting decisions. 33. Reading the plaint in its entirety, it would be clear that the reliefs claimed are not beyond the realm of the authorities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iate that the dispute between the parties is dealt by the authorities constituted under the special statute as discussed supra, more particularly when they had already approached the said authority. 37. It would also appear that the plaintiff People Interactive Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint before the Competition Commission of India on 18.10.2022, i.e., after the new policy was announced on 2.6.2022, seeking interim injunction to maintain status quo and not to collect or impose commission/services on in-app purchases of digital goods (including through UCB) and for IAP and paid app downloads, which are processed through alternative payment solutions. The plaintiff People Interactive Pvt. Ltd. has challenged the definition of "authorized provider" under the DDA in an opinion filed under Section 91 of the Act of 2002, alleging abuse of dominant position. 38. There is one more reason to conclude that the civil court may not exercise the jurisdiction in the present case, as the conditions, clauses and the payment/billing system between the parties are already tested before the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Commission of India has passed an exhaustive order. Th....