Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an information filed by Samir Agrawal, an independent law practitioner, before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 13.08.2018, alleging that cab aggregators Ola and Uber engaged in anti-competitive conduct through algorithmic pricing, constituting price-fixing under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) and resale price maintenance under Section 3(4)(e) of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI, by order dated 06.11.2018 under Section 26(2), closed the matter finding no contravention, holding that the drivers had not colluded and that algorithmic pricing did not amount to a hub-and-spoke cartel. The informant appealed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which dismissed the appeal on 29.05.2020, holding that the informant lacked locus standi as he was not a consumer or competitor, and also upheld the CCI's merits finding. The Supreme Court considered the sole issue of locus standi under Section 19(1)(a), which allows 'any person' to file information. The Court held that the NCLAT's narrow interpretation was erroneous, as the statutory language is broad and does not require the informant to have suffered legal injury. The Court set aside the NCLAT judgment and remanded the matter to the CCI for fresh consideration on both locus and merits, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Competition Law - Locus Standi - Section 19(1)(a) Competition Act, 2002 - Interpretation of 'any person' - The Supreme Court held that the expression 'any person' in Section 19(1)(a) is of wide import and does not require the informant to be a consumer or competitor. The NCLAT's narrow interpretation was erroneous. The Court clarified that locus standi is not a bar for an informant who is an independent practitioner of law to file information before the CCI. (Paras 6-10) B) Competition Law - Anti-competitive Agreements - Algorithmic Pricing - Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(a) Competition Act, 2002 - Hub-and-spoke cartel - The Supreme Court did not finally decide on merits but noted that the CCI's order under Section 26(2) closed the matter without directing investigation. The Court set aside the NCLAT's judgment and remanded the matter to the CCI for fresh consideration on locus standi and merits, as the NCLAT had erroneously held the informant lacked locus. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an informant who is not a consumer or competitor has locus standi to file information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002, and whether algorithmic pricing by cab aggregators constitutes anti-competitive agreement under Section 3 of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCLAT judgment dated 29.05.2020, and remanded the matter to the CCI for fresh consideration on the issue of locus standi and merits, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Law Points
- Locus standi under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act
- 2002
- Hub-and-spoke cartel
- Algorithmic pricing
- Price fixing
- Resale price maintenance
- Price discrimination
