The Delhi Hight Court in the case observed, wherein the Google moved while challenging an order of the single judge directing the Competition Commission of India in order to take up the applications moved by an alliance of start-ups against tech giant’s new in-app user choice billing policy and the same needs to be considered on or before April 26, 2023.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing the present matter.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi seek for urgent listing of the matter and has appraised the court that the CCI is to hear the matter at 2:30 PM.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the Alliance of Digital India Foundation stated that the LPA has not been served upon them yet.
In the present case, the appeal has been moved against the order of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, wherein he disposed of the plea moved by Alliance of Digital India Foundation, against Google’s new policy. Thus, the petitioner in the plea also seek direction on the tech giant in order to keep the same in abeyance till the issue is being adjudicated by Competition Commission of India.
The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that there being no impediment, legal or otherwise, in directing the CCI in order to take up the application as stated under section 42 of Competition Act as filed by the petitioner for hearing and in order to consider the same in accordance with law on or before 26.04.2023. thus, it has also been made clear by Justice Gedela that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present list made before the said court and shall not tantamount to any expression which being on the merits of the case and the same is therefore, which being without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties to be taken at the appropriate proceeding.
It has also been observed by the single judge that the proceedings which are being initiated before the Competition Commission of India would not be vitiated due to vacancy or due to any defect in its constitution. Adding to it, the court stated that merely because of the defect or due to ant vacancy in the constitution of the CCI, the CCI cannot be considered as a statutory authority for not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints or the other proceedings which are pending before the court.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi filed the
present plea.