Karnataka High Court
Google India Private Limited vs Competition Commission Of India on 6 July, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.13422/2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.3, RMZ INFINITY -TOWER E
OLD MADRAS ROAD
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS
BENGALURU- 560016.
REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE AND SENIOR LEGAL
COUNSEL, MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
2. ALPHABET INC
A CORPORATION ORGANISED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF DELWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
1600 AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 940 43
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPT. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
MR. R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF ALPHABET INC.
2
3. GOOGLE LLC
A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
251 LITTLE FALLS DRIVE
WIMINGOTN DE 19808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED
ATTORNEY, MR. R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE LLC.
4. GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF IRELAND
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE GOOGLE BUILDING
GORDON HOUSE
4 BARROW ST. DUBLIN
D04, E5W5 IRELAND.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED
ATTORNEY, MR. R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED.
5. GOOGLE INDIA DIGITAL SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
UNIT 207, 2ND FLOOR
SIGANTURE TOWER -II, TOWER A
SECTOR 15 PART II TOWER A
GURGAON -122001, HARYANA.
REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
AND SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL
3
MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI GOPAL SUBRAMANIAM, ADV. AND
SRI SAJAN POOVAIAH, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SRI DHARMENDRA CHATUR, ADV. AND
SRI ABRAHAM JOSEPH ANEY, ADV.)
AND:
1. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
A COMMISSION ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002
9TH FLOOR, OFFICE BLOCK- 1
KIDWAI NAGAR (EAST)
OPPOSITE RING ROAD
NEW DELHI-110023
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. ALLIANCE OF DIGITAL INDIA FOUNDATION
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
4054-B-5 AND 6, VASANT KUNJ
NEW DELHI -110070
REPT. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. MATCH GROUP INC.,
A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
8750 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY
SUIT 1400, DALLAS, TEXAS 752 31
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPT. BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND HEAD OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS AND POLICY.
...RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI HARISH NARASAPPA, SE.COUNSEL A/W
SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., ADV. FOR R1
SRI GOUTAMADITYA S, ADV. FOR R2
SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SMT. SONAM MATHUR, SRI DINOR MUTHAPPA,
SRI DHRUV DIKSHIT, ADVS. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER-1 DATED 30.05.2022 AS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE
EXTENT IT DENIES THE PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR REVISION OF
THE NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION OF THE DG REPORT AND
CONTAINS PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS;
THE ENTIRETY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER- 2 DATED 14.06.2022 AT
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Sri Gopal Subramaniam and Sri Sajjan Poovayya learned Senior Counsels along with Sri Dharmendra Chattar and Sri Abraham Joseph, learned counsels for the petitioners, Sri Harish Narasappa, learned Senior Counsel along with Smt. Nayanatara B.G., learned counsel for 1st respondent, Sri Goutamaditya S. learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel along Smt. Sonam Mattur, learned counsel for 3rd respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
5
2. Petitioners are before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the impugned order dated 30.5.2022 in case Nos.35 and 14/2021 wherein petitioners are directed to conduct inspection of case records if so desired, and thereafter file objections/suggestions, if any, to the investigation report latest by 30.06.2022 along with a brief synopsis and also the order dated 17.06.2022 wherein the petitioners are allowed to file their objections/suggestions if any, to the investigation report as well as to the IRA latest by 07.07.2022.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gopal Subramaniam would submit that the Director General (for short the 'DG') submitted confidential and non-confidential version of the investigation report to the 1st respondent- Competition Commission of India (for short 'the Commission'). The petitioners were supplied with non-confidential version of the DGs report on 16.03.2022 and the confidential version of the 6 DGs report on 17.6.2022. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the report runs into nearly 13,000 pages and includes 27 pen drives. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that all the relevant material in its entirety, is not supplied to the petitioners even to this date. Further he submits that petitioners have suggested names of CRMs on 2nd June 2022. Further it is submitted that having regard to the volume of DGs report, time granted by the 1st respondent- Commission to submit their objections on or before 07.07.2022 is unreasonable, which cannot be complied in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that looking into the DGs report, which runs to more than 13,000 pages and 27 pen drives, the petitioners require minimum of 8 weeks to submit their version.
4. Learned Senior Counsel inviting attention of this Court to para 25 of the order dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure-B) submits that 1st respondent-Commission, before hearing the petitioners has come to a conclusion and has directed the 7 petitioners to make submissions on the quantum of penalty, which may be levied by the Commission in the event of GOOGLE being held in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is contended that, making submission with regard to quantum of penalty would not arise at this stage, and the 1st respondent be directed to hear the case on merits, without being influenced by observations made in the impugned orders.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sajjan Poovaya for the petitioners also submits that the GOOGLE CRMs have been permitted to review the confidential version of the records for an hour or two in a day and in that process scrutiny of 13,000 pages and 27 pen drives would take long time. Further he submits that some of the material have been furnished to the petitioners yesterday i.e., on 05.07.2022.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Harish Narasappa for 1st respondent-Commission, would submit that the time line is 8 fixed under the Competition Act 2002 (for short 'the 2002 Act') to dispose off the matter by the Commission. Further it is submitted that petitioners are seeking further time to submit its comments/version on the DGs report only with a view to prolong the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that petitioners were required to suggest names of the CRMs in pursuance to order dated 18.04.2022, but the same was filed by the petitioners only on 02.06.2022. Learned Senior Counsel on instructions would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners could be given 10 more days time to submit its comments or objections on DGs report and prays for passing appropriate order.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa for 3rd respondent would submit that, scrutinizing DGs report and 27 pen drives, would not be a big task especially for the petitioners and it would not need 8 weeks time to file its comments or objections as prayed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
9
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for the parties and on going through the entire writ petition papers, in the facts and circumstances, it would be reasonable to extend time till 30.07.2022 to the petitioners to submit their comments or objections to the DGs report.
9. Under the provisions of the 2002 Act the Commission is empowered to enquire into the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act. Section 26 provides for procedure for enquiry under Section 19. Section 36 enumerates the power of Commission to regulate its own procedure. Section 41 provides the Director General to investigate contraventions, when so directed by the Commission, assist the Commission in investigation into any contravention of provisions of the Act or any Rules or Regulations made there under. Rule 20 of CCI (General) Regulations 2009 (for short 'the 2009 Regulations') provides for investigation by Director General 10 and Rule 21 provides for procedure for enquiry under Section 26 of the 2002 Act.
10. Under Section 26 of the 2002 Act and under Regulation 21 of the 2009 Regulations, the Commission shall forward the DGs report to the concerned parties inviting objections/suggestions. In the case on hand, the Director General after investigation submitted report on 16.03.2022 to the CCI. The CCI forwarded the non-confidential version of the report to the petitioners on 16.03.2022 and confidential version on 17.06.2022. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the report runs into nearly 13,000 pages and 27 pen drives. Whatever, be the men and machinery possessed by the petitioners, definitely, the voluminous records need reasonable time to be scrutinized and to submit objections / suggestions. It is true that petitioners were initially granted time up to 30.06.2022, which was further extended up to 07.07.2022 to submit their objections / suggestions. Admittedly time line is prescribed under the 2002 Act for 11 disposal of the proceedings before the CCI. But at the same time, the parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to put forth their case, depending on the facts and material on record. The time to submit their objections to DGs report shall be commensurate with the nature of allegation and the voluminous records placed on record. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, time is extended till 30.07.2022 to the petitioners to submit their objections / suggestions.
11. Learned Senior Counsel invited attention of this Court, to the observations made by the CCI during the course of its order to say that the CCI could not have asked the petitioners to make its submissions on the quantum of penalty at this stage. The said observation by the Commission is, in the event GOOGLE is to be held in contravention of the provisions of the 2002 Act, during the hearing. It is for the petitioners to include submission on the quantum of penalty, which may be levied by the Commission in the event GOOGLE is to be held 12 in contravention of the provisions of the 2002 Act or to submit its objections on the quantum subsequent to hearing. The CCI shall proceed to hear the parties to the proceedings without being influenced by any of the observations made during the course of passing interim orders.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms