The Karnataka High Court today observed that it still had doubts over whether it has jurisdiction to deal with a plea filed by Swiggy against a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order allowing a restaurant association access to confidential data concerning the food delivery app [Swiggy Limited v. Competition Commission of India and ors].
Justice MGS Kamal had expressed similar reservations during a May 21 hearing as well. On that date, the Court pondered whether the case could be heard in Karnataka since the CCI proceedings had taken place in Delhi.
Appearing for Swiggy, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya asserted today that there were several judicial pronouncements to indicate that a High Court can entertain a dispute that has pan-India ramifications if a part of the cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.
Justice Kamal, however, replied that in Swiggy's case, this crucial aspect of whether a part of the cause of action has arisen in Karnataka is not clear from Swiggy's pleadings.
"Can you point out which is the part of cause action arising in Karnataka, except receiving copy of CCI order in Karnataka? Please see para 81 (of the petition)," the judge remarked.
Poovayya acknowledged that the pleading could have been phrased in a better way and sought the Court's permission to file an additional affidavit to clarify this aspect of territorial jurisdiction.
"I have all-India contracts...CCI investigation was against Swiggy and Zomato and in the investigation, Swiggy was found to be dominant in South India and Zomato was found dominant in North India...Para 81 should have been worded better...I will file an affidavit on entire events that have transpired," Poovayya said.
Justice Kamal added,
"If you see the judgments ... central point is that of 'cause of action', which has to be culled out from the petition. Subject to you filing affidavit, Court is not convinced."
"This is the price I pay for court having read the papers!" Poovayya replied, in a lighter vein.
"Please give me the opportunity, I will file (an affidavit)...This will have far-reaching ramifications," the senior lawyer added.
Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman appeared for the CCI and said,
"Any amount of affidavit is not going to improve his case...Why should it be Karnataka? Why can't it be Chennai? Or Telangana or West Bengal? Because it is a pan-India presence. You can't pick and choose, we would be interpreting Article 226(2) in a completely distorted way!"
The ASG maintained that the dispute could not be heard in Karnataka.
The Court, however, decided to hear the case further on May 28 and permitted Swiggy to file its additional affidavit.
The dispute concerns confidential information shared by Swiggy with the CCI's Director General (DG) as part of a probe into allegations by the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) that Swiggy and Zomato had indulged in anti-competitive practices.
The DG's probe had been initiated in 2022, after the CCI opined that the NRAI had established a prima facie case against Swiggy and Zomato.
The DG compiled an investigation report earlier this year. In April 2024, the CCI allowed a request by NRAI for access to the DG's findings, which contained confidential information submitted by Swiggy and Zomato.
This directive has been challenged by Swiggy in its writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.
This petition asserts that the sharing of such confidential data was not necessary or expedient for the CCI proceedings, and that it would cause irreparable harm to Swiggy if such sensitive data is given to the NRAI.
[Read live coverage of the hearing today]