[Swiggy Vs. CCI] Karnataka HC Uncertain To Entertain Swiggy's Plea Against CCI Order

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Justice MGS Kamal raised similar reservations during a May 21 hearing, questioning whether the case fell under Karnataka’s jurisdiction since the CCI proceedings originated in Delhi.

[Swiggy vs. CCI] Karnataka HC Uncertain on Swiggy's Plea Against CCI Order — [Swiggy vs. CCI] Karnataka HC Uncertain on Swiggy’s Plea Against CCI Order

Karnataka: Today (23rd May): The Karnataka High Court expressed uncertainty regarding its jurisdiction to address a petition filed by Swiggy against a directive from the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The order instructed the food delivery platform to disclose confidential information to a restaurant association.

Justice MGS Kamal raised similar reservations during a May 21 hearing, questioning whether the case fell under Karnataka’s jurisdiction since the CCI proceedings originated in Delhi.

Justice Kamal responded that it was not evident from Swiggy’s pleadings whether a portion of the cause of action had occurred in Karnataka.

“Can you identify any aspect of the cause of action originating in Karnataka, apart from receiving the CCI order there? Please refer to paragraph 81 of the petition,” remarked the judge.

However, Justice Kamal noted the lack of clarity in Swiggy’s pleadings regarding the portion of the cause of action arising in Karnataka, apart from receiving the CCI order.

Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Swiggy, cited legal precedents suggesting that a High Court can handle disputes with nationwide implications if part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

Acknowledging the ambiguity, Poovayya sought permission to submit an additional affidavit clarifying the jurisdictional aspect.

Poovayya admitted that the pleading could have been clearer and requested the Court’s permission to submit an additional affidavit to clarify the territorial jurisdiction aspect.

“I have nationwide contracts… The CCI investigation targeted both Swiggy and Zomato, with Swiggy identified as dominant in South India and Zomato in North India… Paragraph 81 should have been articulated better… I will submit an affidavit detailing all relevant events,” Poovayya stated.

In response, Justice Kamal emphasized the importance of identifying the central point of the cause of action from the petition and expressed the Court’s lack of conviction until the affidavit was filed.

“This is the price I pay for the court having read the papers!” Poovayya jokingly remarked.

“Please grant me the opportunity, and I will file the affidavit… This will have significant implications,” the senior lawyer added.

Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) N Venkataraman, representing the CCI, argued against Karnataka’s jurisdiction, highlighting Swiggy’s pan-India presence.

“Why should it be Karnataka? Why not Chennai, Telangana, or West Bengal? With its pan-India presence, Swiggy cannot cherry-pick jurisdictions, as it would distort Article 226(2),” remarked the ASG.

The ASG N Venkataraman, appearing for the CCI, argued against Karnataka’s jurisdiction, asserting the case’s pan-India presence.

Despite objections, the Court scheduled further proceedings for May 28, allowing Swiggy to file its additional affidavit.

The dispute revolves around confidential information shared by Swiggy with the CCI during a probe into anti-competitive practices alleged by the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) against Swiggy and Zomato.

The CCI allowed NRAI access to the Director General’s findings, prompting Swiggy to challenge the directive in the Karnataka High Court. Swiggy contends that sharing confidential data is unnecessary for CCI proceedings and could harm its interests irreparably.

Case Title: Swiggy Limited v. Competition Commission of India and ors