Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Mr.Abir Roy, learned counsel, made submissions in response and to the contrary. His first contention was that the Division Bench referred to the plaint in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.109 of 2023, People Interactive (India) Private Limited v. Alphabet Inc & Others (People Interactive), but not to any other plaint. Put differently, his contention was that the comparison between the plaint in this suit and that in Nasadiya is not appropriate because the comparison made by the Division Bench was only with the plaint of People Interactive. He countered the contention that breach of provisions of the ICA was considered by the Division Bench by referring to the contentions of the present applicants, as mentioned in the judgment of the Division Bench. With specific reference to paragraph 7(xii) and (xiv) of the judgment of the Division Bench, he pointed out that the contention of __________ Page 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:09:11 pm ) the applicants that the plaints in those suits lack pleadings to the effect that the introduction of the UCB Policy amounted to novation of the DDA under Section 62 of the ICA was recorded therein. He also pointed out that the applicants contended that the ingredients of Section 16 of the ICA had not been pleaded in those suits. A similar contention with regard to the lack of pleadings on alleged tortious interference was also adverted to by him.

14. Mr.Raman made submissions in rejoinder. By referring to paragraph 81 of the plaint in the Nasadiya suit, he submitted that tortious interference was pleaded therein. He also submitted that tortious interference was pleaded in the suit filed by People Interactive. As regards novation, by referring to paragraph 6(xvi) of the judgment of the Division Bench, learned senior counsel submitted that this aspect was considered therein even though it was not expressly pleaded in the People Interactive plaint. In that connection, he also referred to paragraph 80 of the plaint in Nasadiya as evidence that novation was pleaded therein. As regards the alleged breach of Section 27 of the ICA, learned senior counsel submitted that the contract would be rendered void if such __________ Page 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:09:11 pm ) contention were to be accepted by the Court, thereby bringing the commercial relationship to an end. By contrast, he submitted that Section 27(d) of the Competition Act even enables the CCI to modify a contract.

24. Thereafter, by asserting that the charging of 4% or more towards payment processing is both unconscionable and an abuse of the superior bargaining position, the plaintiff has alleged special damage, tortious interference, undue influence, novation and waiver in paragraphs 82 to 87, which are set out below:

“83. The said conduct of Google is causing 'special damage' to the Plaintiff, which is more than mere nominal damage where Google is effectively asking the Plaintiff to make its business unviable. That such commission would cause economic duress to the Plaintiff. The said conduct of Google is a direct interference with the business of the Plaintiff and the same amounts to tortious interference.

26. From paragraph 6 (xvi) and (xii) of the judgment of the Division Bench, it is noticeable that some of the parties had pleaded novation and restraint of trade. Likewise, it is noticeable from paragraph 7 (xii) and (xxiv) of the judgment of the Division Bench that the applicants' contentions that the allegations of breach of Sections 16, 62 and other provisions of the ICA were bereft of pleadings were recorded. A similar contention with regard to alleged lack of pleadings on tortious interference was also recorded in the judgment of the Division Bench. In that factual context, the Division Bench concluded that the grievance raised by the plaintiffs therein could be dealt with by the CCI under the Competition Act. The Division Bench also took note of Sections 61 and 62 of the Competition Act and concluded that Section 61 cannot be interpreted __________ Page 33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:09:11 pm ) to mean that an individual can institute proceedings in a commercial court alleging abuse of dominant position by disregarding Section 61.