The Karnataka High Court today asked whether the Competition Commission of India (CCI) could reexamine its directive to share confidential data about Swiggy with a restaurant association [Swiggy Limited v. Competition Commission of India and ors].
Towards this end, the Court also asked the competition watchdog whether it would be open to hearing Swiggy and other stakeholders on the issue before passing a detailed order.
Justice SR Krishna Kumar observed that it would save a lot of time for all parties concerned, if the matter is sent back to the CCI to settle the issue after hearing all rival parties.
CCI counsel advocate Nayantara BG urged the Court to grant some time to seek instructions on this aspect. The Court agreed to this request and listed the matter for further consideration on June 26.
The CCI had earlier allowed the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) to become part of a "confidential ring" that would have access to the unredacted version of a report by the Director General (DG) of the CCI on allegations of anti-competitive practices by Swiggy and Zomato.
The NRAI had filed the initial complaint before the CCI against Swiggy and Zomato, which had led to the DG's investigation. The unredacted version of the DG's report contained sensitive business information about Swiggy and Zomato.
Swiggy challenged the CCI's decision to allow NRAI access to such information.
The Court today was hearing rejoinder arguments by Swiggy, after the CCI and the NRAI concluded submissions in earlier hearings.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, who appeared for Swiggy, contended that the CCI ought to have heard Swiggy's objections before allowing the NRAI to become a part of the confidentiality ring.
After hearing Swiggy's objections, the CCI should have passed a reasoned order on this aspect, he said. Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa also appeared for Swiggy and supported Poovayya's submissions.
The Court was slated to close the hearing today after hearing Swiggy's rejoinder arguments. However, Justice Kumar that it would save a lot of time if the dispute were to be sent back to the CCI to settle.
Even if the High Court were to decide on Swiggy's writ petition one way or another, the losing party would likely file a writ appeal, the Court observed. It would, therefore, save time for all the parties concerned if the matter were sent back to the CCI, the judge explained.
Appearing for NRAI, Advocate Abir Roy said that if such an order is being passed, it could also be specified that the CCI should decide on the matter in a time-bound manner.
The Court said that it could direct the CCI to decide on the matter within a month after hearing all parties.
Whereas Swiggy's counsel was agreeable to this suggestion, counsel for CCI asked the Court not to pass orders to this effect today. She also expressed apprehensions that such an order may later be treated as a precedent by other parties.
The Court, however, assured that it would specify in the order that it should not be treated as a precedent.
[Read Live Coverage]