Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court, on January 6, transferred multiple writ petitions pending in various High Courts to the Karnataka High Court. These petitions challenge the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) probe into alleged anti-competitive practices by Amazon and Flipkart-associated sellers. The transfer was ordered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, based on a transfer petition filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The bench observed that the subject matter of these petitions aligns with the case currently being heard by a single bench of the Karnataka High Court. It directed that any future petitions involving similar issues be transferred to the Karnataka High Court. The Court further noted that the single judge handling the matter at the Dharwad bench could sit at the principal bench to hear both the pending and transferred petitions.

The case originated in January 2020 when the CCI initiated a probe under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. This was prompted by a complaint from the Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh, a traders' association, alleging that Amazon and Flipkart were engaging in anti-competitive practices. The complaint accused the platforms of favoring select sellers by boosting their visibility, which disadvantaged other traders. It was further alleged that the preferred sellers had close ties to the platforms.

In June 2021, the Karnataka High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by Amazon and Flipkart challenging the investigation. Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar observed that halting the investigation at a preliminary stage would not be appropriate. This decision was upheld by a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, which stated that the companies should not avoid the inquiry if they were not involved in any legal violations. Later, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the CCI's investigation in August 2021.

Following the conclusion of the CCI’s investigation in August 2024, which found Amazon and Flipkart guilty of violating competition laws by favoring specific sellers and launching exclusive online products, multiple petitions were filed across High Courts. These petitions, filed in Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Allahabad, and Telangana, sought to challenge various aspects of the investigation.

The CCI subsequently filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court to consolidate the 24 writ petitions (later increased to 26) pending across different High Courts. The objective was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and potential delays. The Supreme Court initially declined to transfer the petitions to the Delhi High Court or a division bench of the Karnataka High Court, citing compliance with the Karnataka High Court Rules, which mandate that such matters first be heard by a single judge.

During the December 13 hearing, the Supreme Court directed Attorney General for India R. Venkatramani to obtain instructions regarding the transfer of all petitions to the Karnataka High Court single bench, where related petitions were already being heard. On December 16, the Court signaled its intention to transfer all petitions to the Karnataka High Court and stayed proceedings in the pending petitions before the Karnataka High Court to avoid overlapping. The Court also permitted the CCI to add necessary parties and directed it to file an amended cause title.

The Attorney General informed the Supreme Court that the CCI was agreeable to the transfer, provided that uniformity in proceedings was ensured and a timeline was established for the hearings. Acting on this, the Supreme Court issued an order transferring the petitions to the Karnataka High Court and directed that the single judge hearing these matters at the Dharwad bench be allowed to sit at the principal bench for the proceedings.

Case Title: Competition Commission of India v. Cloudtail India Private Limited
Case Number: TP (C) No. 3364-3387/2024; Diary No. 56571/2024
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan