Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging 'Cartelization' In Air India-Vistara Merger

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging 'Cartelization' In Air India-Vistara Merger

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by former Air India Pilot, Captain Deepak Kumar, against the merger of Tata Sia Airlines and Air India Limited over allegations of cartelization and bid rigging.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the allegations are unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence.

The court upheld an order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in December last year dismissed Kumar's plea against the merger, noting the absence of any substantive evidence to back the allegations. The Court observed, “On 29th August, 2023, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 challenging the approved merger between Tata SIA Airlines Limited and Air India Limited. Among other claims, the Petitioner alleged cartelization and bid rigging. However, the Competition Commission of India dismissed the application, noting the absence of any substantive evidence to back these allegations. Consequently, through order dated 15th December, 2023, the application was closed under Section 26(2) of the Act by CCI.”

Additionally, the petition also included numerous unsubstantiated, wild and scandalous allegations against the Prime Minister and a former Chief Justice of India, none of which were supported by documentary evidence.

The court referred to a previous order and noted that this case demonstrated a consistent pattern of making unsubstantiated and reckless allegations, against the Prime Minister.

The Court concluded, “These allegations, which are not only unsupported by evidence but also seem to be driven by malice, undermine the integrity of the judicial process. The claims are made without any regard for truth and appear to be designed to manipulate or mislead. This approach not only discredits the Petitioner’s credibility but also burdens the legal system unnecessarily. Therefore, in the Court’s view, given the absence of any substantiated claims and the apparent malicious intent behind the allegations, the present petition lacks merit.”