The Hon’ble Supreme court of India on 15/10/2020 stated that there will be no indulgement of the court on order held by the quasi-judicial body, The Competition Commission Of India ( CCI) and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLAT). The order articulated its segments by holding that the Indian ridesharing company Ola and Uber do not have any involvement in Cartelisation or anti-competitive practices (Samir agrawal v. Competition commission of India).
Samir Agrawal v. Competition Commission of India:
The board compound allegation filed by the Appellant was in accordance to section 3 and to initiate an inquiry under section 26(2) of the Competition Act of India pointing that the following companies are promoting anti-competitive conduct.
According to the Informant, the operating model or functioning of Uber and Ola work on an algorithm which calculates the fare and set a standard price, because of this algorithm neither parties in stand are not able to negotiate fares with individual drivers for rides that are booked through the apps and the drivers not able to offer any discounts. The conduct pointed that there is no freedom of choose given to riders and drivers to select and accept the price lay down by the algorithm. The concerned point to list is that the Informant pointed the price setting and artificially manipulates supply and demand, guaranteeing higher fares.
The Competition Commission Of India ( CCI) looking into the circumstances and foregoing discussion about the price fixing under section 3(3)(a) with section 3(1), resale price maintenance agreement under section 3(4)(e) by the mentioned Informant held that there is no abdicate any evidence on record and support to proceed the case forward therein CCI granted a clean chit to Uber and Ola.
After which the mentioned Informant being resentful filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) as a outcome dated on 29.05.2020, the judgment provided that presuming the Informant had no locus standi and stated the business model of Ola and Uber does not support the allegation of Informant as regards price discrimination. And the above mentioned companies do not provide exchange of information amongst the drivers and the company.
The concentrate issue looked upon pointed the abuse of dominant position under section 4 of the Competition Act of India, the following authority admitted there’s no abuse of dominant position and adverse effects on competition.
Furthermore it was stated that the Informant in particular not got any legal injury by the companies in stand but in the proceeding person before the court mentioned a Services Agreement between Uber dated 08.09.2015, and an Agreement between Ola dated 01.11.2016. And strike the working or finding of the NCLAT with respect to locus standi holding to section 19 and 35 of the Competition Act of India. The argument presented pointed that to approach the commission there’s no necessity as to be consumer. The learned ASG on behalf of the CCI showed the CCI’s Order closing the case and right of the Appellant to approach the CCI with information.
Based on the foregoing discussion, The Court followed the merits set out the concurrent findings of fact of the CCI and the NCLAT, wherein it has been found that Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers therein disposed the appeal by aforementioned points in terms of this judgment.
Author: Akshat Dahate from ILS Law College, Pune.
Juris Centre 