The Karnataka High Court in the case Google India Private Limited Versus. Competition Commission Of India observed and permitted the Google India Private Limited to file its reply to the Director General (Investigation) Report to the Competition Commission of India, by July 30, 2022 as it was directed to reply by July 7.
A Single judge bench comprising of Justice S.G. Pandit observed and orally told the company which sought eight weeks’ time, the bench remarked “You complete your job”.
In the present case, the CCI is currently probing if Google employs anti-competitive measures to require developers distributing their apps through Play Store to use Google Play’s billing system and to pay 15-30% on the sale of digital goods as a service fee. Prima facie, the CCI had reportedly found the tech giant guilty of adopting anti-competitive, unfair and restrictive trade practices in the mobile operating system and related markets.
It was observed that the company had approached questioning the order passed by the Competition Commission of India, dated May 30, and June 14, by which its directed the company by July 7, to respond to the DG Report.
August 2, was fixed as the date for final hearing on the Second ADIF IRA, the 6 May Match Letters and the DG Report. The counsel appearing for the company, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium and Sajan Povvayya submitted that approximately 13,000 pages and 27 pen drives have to be gone through and thus it sought for eight weeks’ time and prepare the reply.
The Counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium submitted that We (Google) have given an undertaking that till October 31 and we are not enforcing the Google Pay policy and it will only be up to September, thus if eight weeks’ time is granted, when the CCI can begin its final hearing.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the respondent no 3, MATCH GROUP INC submitted that it was yet another delay tactic adopted by the company. It was observed by the bench that a reasonable time be given to the parties and accordingly it allowed Google to file its reply by July 30.
The petition prayed for a writ quashing the impugned Order dated 30 May 2022 to the extent it denies the Petitioners’ request for revision of the non-confidential version of the DG Report and the report contains prejudicial statements against the Petitioners. Thereafter, the order dated 14 June 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 or Commission in Case Nos. 7 of 2020 which is clubbed with Case no. 14 of 2021 and Case No. 35 of 2021 as invalid, illegal, arbitrary and non-est.