Karnataka HC is hearing two petitions moved by Amazon and flipkart seeking to quash the probe ordered by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against them for alleged violations of Competition Law.
Senior Adv Gopal Subramanium appearing for Amazon submits that the order passed by CCI calling for investigation into Amazon is against object and purpose of the Competition Act.
He refers to the preamble of the Competition Act.
The impugned order calls upon investigation into a platform which actually promotes competition: Subramanium.
The CCI order reeks of non application of mind: Subramanium.
He also refers to various Supreme Court judgments in this regard.
We are only a marketplace, we have no control over the prices of phones (or other products): Subramanium.
The order does not expressly show that Amazon has "adverse appreciable effect on Competition", he adds.
There are no entry barriers, anyone can enter the market: Subramanium
The document submitted by the informant to CCI was incomplete, says Subramanium.
The doc says that online sales for phones is growing manifold. However, the next page says that offline sales for phones is still major, with 60%.
This page was not submitted: Subramanium
The Commission ought to have been careful when this page was missing in the document furnished by the informant: Subramanium
He now argues on point of prices of goods in Amazon.
"If I dont own goods, how do I control prices?" - Subramanium
Informant is of the view that Cloudtail and Appario is related to the Petitioner. It alleges that the shareholders are same. This is not true: Subramanium
Subramanium now refer to various Supreme Court orders.
You must be able to substantiate your primafacie opinion. Merely saying that you have a primafacie opinion is not enough. CCI can order investigation only if there is a primafacie opinion: Subramanium
If nothing is found against me by Authorities under FEMA, then what is the need for the CCI to pass an order under section 26 (1) of the Competition Act: Subramanium
Justice PS Dinesh Kumar: How long do you need?
Subramanium: Maximum 30 mins. I want to wind up.
Justice Kunar: Let's do it tomorrow. I have some more misc matters.
Matter adjourned to tomorrow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
#SupremeCourt Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer hears plea by #FranklinTempleton challenging Karnataka High Court order which restrained winding up of six of its debt schemes without obtaining the consent of its investors by a simple majority #FranklinTempleton
Senior Advocate Ravindra Srivastava: The winding up decision is being challenged for being mala fide.
#BombayHighCourt will pronounce its verdict in the transit bail petition filed by lawyer and activist Nikita Jacob in the case registered by the Delhi Police pertaining to the “toolkit” related to the ongoing farmers protests.
Justice PD Naik said yesterday that he would pass an order in Jacob's plea after perusing order of the Aurangabad Bench granting transit bail to activist Shantanu Muluk, another person implicated in the #ToolkitCase .
#SupremeCourt to shortly hear petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh ordinance, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand laws prohibiting religious #conversion for marriage
Petitioners argue that the laws are being misused to harass individuals indulging in interfaith marriages. #SupremeCourt #ordinance
Senior Adv CU Singh: Respondents has circulated a letter for adjournment. We are seeking to amend the plea to include challenge to Himachal and Madhya Pradesh laws. They have brought in conversion prohibition laws
Supreme Court to continue hearing petition filed by @Facebook India chief Ajit Mohan challenging the summons issued to him by Delhi Assembly's Committee in relation to #DelhiRiots2020. Arguments are likely to conclude today #SupremeCourt@secondatticus
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta: Adjudication here is of a constitutional question on whether Delhi Assembly will have legislative competence to summon someone for a probe in a subject which is under a different list.
SG Mehta: Essentially the question boils to whether the Delhi assembly examining the social media company can be done at all.
Justice Kaul:Salve argued he can choose to appear somewhere and he can choose not to appear somewhere. It was his business decision to appear before you
[BREAKING] Supreme Court registers suo motu Criminal Contempt case against Rajdeep Sardesai for tweets criticising court, months after AG KK Venugopal denied consent
The case was registered by the Supreme Court despite the fact that Attorney General KK Venugopal had earlier refused to grant consent to the initiation of contempt proceedings against Rajdeep Sardesai