Karnataka High Court
Google India Private Limited vs Competition Commission Of India on 10 January, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 24277 OF 2021(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.3, RMZ INFNTY TOWER E,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS,
BENGALURU-560 016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR
HEAD OF LEGAL WEST ASIA
MS GITANJAN DUGGAL,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
2. ALPHABET INC
A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE UNITED
STAGES OF AMERICA
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1600
AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VEW CA 94043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
MR R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
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
2
LITTLE FALLS DRIVE WILMINGTON DE19808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
MR R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
4. GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF IRELAND
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE GOOGLE BUILDING GORDON
HOSUE 4 BARROW ST DUBLIN
D04 E5W5 IRELAND
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
MR R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
5. GOOGLE INDIA DIGITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT 207,
2ND FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWER-II TOWER A
SECTOR 15 PART II SILOKHERA
GURGAON-122001 HARYANA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
AND DIRECTOR HEAD OF LEGAL WEST ASIA
MS GITANJI DUGGAL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOPAL SUBRAMANIAN AND
SRI. SAJAN POOVAYYA A/W
SRI. DHARMENDRA CHATUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
A COMMISSION ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 2002
9TH FLOOR, OFFICE BLOCK 1,
KIDWAI NAGAR (EAST)
OPPOSITE RING ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. ALLIANCE OF DIGITAL INDIA FOUNDATION
A COMPANY WITH THE MEANING
OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013,
3
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
4054-B 5 AND 6 VASANT KUNJ.
NEW DELHI-110070
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N VENKATARAMAN, ASG A/W
SMT. POORNIMA HATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. GAUTAMADITYA S AND
SRI. ABIR ROY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 14.12.2021 PASSED BY R1/COMMISSION IN
CASE NO.35 OF 2021(ALONG WITH CASE NOS.7 OF 2020 AND 14
OF 2021)(AS AT ANNEXURE-A) AS ILLEGAL, INVALID, ARBITRARY
AND NON-EST AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
All the parties through their advocates have filed a Joint Memo dated 10.01.2022 seeking disposal of this writ petition in terms thereof. The said Memo reads as under:
"The undersigned Advocates for the Petitioners and Respondents state as under:
1. On 05/01/2022, upon commencement of hearing of the above matter at Sl.No.29, the Learned Additional Solicitor General, on the instructions of the Advocate for the Respondent No.1, Competition Commission of India, submitted that the Director General conducting investigation pursuant to the Order dated 09/11/2020 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 ("the Act"), in Case No.35 of 2021(connected with Case No.7 of 2020 and Case No.14 of 2021) ("Pending Matters") has indicated that such investigation pursuant to Order under 4 26(1) of the Act is likely to be concluded within 60 days from 05/01/2022.
2. Accordingly, the Learned Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the Advocates representing Respondent No.1, submitted that the Pending Matters before the Respondent No.1,will be considered on their merits, post-submission of the investigation report by the Director General in due course, as per procedure envisaged under Section 26 of the Act. In addition, the Interim Relief Application dated 6/10/2021 (Interim Relief Application) filed by the Respondent No.2 in the proceedings pending before the Respondent No.1 Commission, will be disposed of by this Hon'ble Court.
3. The Learned Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the Advocates representing Respondent No.1, further submitted that the Writ Petition may be disposed of, subject to the following terms, and without prejudice to the respective rights, contentions, submissions and defences of all parties:
a) The Petitioners will continue to cooperate in the investigation by the Director General in the Pending Matters.
b) The Petitioners will not give effect to the Google Play Billing Policy Clarification until 31/10/2022, in compliance with their assurance to this Hon'ble Court.
c) In the light of the above, the Interim Relief Application filed by Respondent No.2 under Section 33 of the Act in Case No.14 of 2021, may be closed by this Hon'ble Court, reserving liberty to Respondent No.2 to file fresh interim application(s), if the need so arises.5
4. This Joint Memo shall not be construed as a legal or factual admission or waiver by any of the parties. All factual and legal contentions, by all parties remain open, and parties are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in the future, as deemed necessary.
5. Under such circumstances, on specific instructions, the Advocates representing the Petitioners, the Respondents No. 1 and 2, have come to a consensus that the instant Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of this Joint Memo.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take this instant Joint Memo on record and dispose of the Writ Petition, in terms hereof, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. There being no impediment, factual or legal for disposing off the writ petition in terms of the above memo, petition is disposed off subject to all just exceptions.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/