Wa0010.

Facts-
After requesting an inquiry, both the CCI and the authorities under the Competition Act, 2000,
found no evidence of anti-competitive behavior between Ola and Uber. As a result, all charges
against the companies were dismissed. The appellant then filed an appeal in NCLAT, which
was also dismissed. He further appealed to the Supreme Court in December 2020, where the
case was heard by a three-judge bench. He alleged that the pricing algorithms used by Ola and
Uber restricted competition among drivers, violating the provisions of the Competition Act,
2002.
Issues-
• Whether the drivers, by being part of the Ola and Uber platform, were bound to follow
prices set by the platform, restricting free competition.
• Whether Samir Agarwal, the appellant, had the locus standi to file the complaint under
the Competition Act despite not being directly affected.
• Whether any individual can file a complaint with the CCI regarding anti-competitive
practices and subsequently appeal if the CCI dismisses the complaint.
Hub and Spoke Cartel-

A cartel is when companies offering similar products or services agree on pricing or supply to
make higher profits, reducing competition and harming consumers. A hub-and-spoke cartel
involves a central entity (hub) setting prices, influencing competitors (spokes) without direct
coordination among them. Ola and Uber's platforms were alleged to function as such a hub.
Arguments of Samir Agrawal:

• Referred to the Uber case in the USA, highlighting that similar issues were recognized
in foreign jurisdictions.
• Alleged that the algorithms created a hub-and-spoke cartel for price fixing.
• Argued that Ola and Uber held collective dominance in the market.
• Claimed that drivers were bound by platform-set rates, restricting fair market
competition.
• Stated that as a concerned citizen, he had standing under section 19(1)(a) of the
Competition Act.
Ola’s and Uber’s Arguments:

• Ola: Argued that drivers were independent, and multiple factors influenced algorithm-
based prices. Questioned the appellant's standing due to the lack of personal harm.
• Uber: Claimed its pricing model was akin to metered taxis, with drivers free to operate
offline. Denied holding a dominant position and affirmed compliance with regulations.
Findings of CCI:
• Dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of anti-competitive conduct.
• Rejected the concept of collective dominance as Indian law requires a single dominant
entity.
• No evidence supported the existence of a hub-and-spoke cartel.
Appeal to NCLAT:
• Referred to a US lawsuit (Spencer Meyer vs. Travis Kalanick), but this was deemed
irrelevant by NCLAT.
• NCLAT upheld the CCI's decision, finding no collective dominance or evidence of
collusion.
Judgment of SC:
• The Supreme Court reinforced that any individual could approach the CCI, promoting
public interest. Section 45's penalties act as a safeguard against frivolous complaints.
The court noted that competition law proceedings aim to serve the public interest,
balancing accessibility and deterrence against misuse.
Key Points of the Judgment:
• Locus Standi and Public Interest:

o The Supreme Court emphasized that competition law inherently serves the
public interest. Section 19 of the Competition Act allows the CCI to initiate
inquiries either on its own or based on information from "any person."
o The Court highlighted that the term "person" is defined inclusively under
Section 2(l) of the Act and covers individuals, companies, associations, and any
legal or artificial entity. This broad definition allows anyone, regardless of
personal grievance, to inform the CCI about anti-competitive practices.
1. Interpretation of Section 19(1)(a):
o Originally, Section 19(1) provided for the "receipt of a complaint" from an
aggrieved party. However, after a 2007 amendment, it was changed to "receipt
of any information." This amendment indicated a deliberate shift from requiring
direct harm to allowing information to be received from any individual,
expanding access to competition law enforcement.
o The Court recognized that proceedings before the CCI are in rem, meaning they
affect the public at large and not just the parties involved.
2. Safeguards Against Frivolous Complaints:
o The Supreme Court acknowledged concerns that this broad interpretation could
lead to a surge in frivolous or vexatious complaints, potentially instigated by
competitors for strategic purposes.
o To mitigate this, the Court pointed out the existence of Section 45 of the
Competition Act, which allows for penalties (up to Rs. 1 crore) for individuals
providing false information. This provision acts as a deterrent against misuse
and ensures only genuine public interest concerns are raised.
3. Right to Appeal:
o The judgment also analyzed Sections 53B and 53T of the Act, which govern
appeals to the NCLAT and Supreme Court, respectively. These sections provide
the right of appeal to “any person aggrieved by” the CCI's decisions.
o The Court clarified that individuals who provide information to the CCI could
be considered "aggrieved" if the CCI does not act on the information or
dismisses it. This interpretation ensures that informants can challenge
dismissals when their submissions are not acted upon, reinforcing
accountability within the CCI’s processes.
4. Procedural Aspects:
o The Court stressed that the CCI's role is inquisitorial rather than adjudicatory.
This means it investigates potential violations in the public interest rather than
resolving disputes between private parties. The Supreme Court's stance
broadens the range of people who can approach the CCI, encouraging a more
open and proactive regulatory environment.
Implications of the Judgment:

• Widened Access: This judgment promotes broader public participation in ensuring fair
market practices by allowing any individual, regardless of personal interest, to act as an
informant.
• Checks and Balances: While the judgment supports an inclusive approach, it maintains
sufficient checks to prevent abuse through penalties for false or malicious information.
• Public Interest Emphasis: By acknowledging that competition law serves public
interest, the Supreme Court reinforces the idea that protecting competitive markets is
essential for economic welfare and consumer protection.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision reinforced the interpretation that any person may act as an
informant under Indian competition law, broadening access to competition law remedies. While
promoting public interest, it also emphasized the importance of discouraging frivolous
complaints through penalties, maintaining a balance between openness and responsibility.

Wa0010.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wa0010.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wa0010.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts-

Hub and Spoke Cartel-

Arguments of Samir Agrawal:

Ola’s and Uber’s Arguments:

Key Points of the Judgment:

• Locus Standi and Public Interest:

Implications of the Judgment:

You might also like