Karnataka High Court Directs CCI To Expedite Decision On Swiggy's Objection To Confidential Data Sharing

Karnataka High Court Directs CCI To Expedite Decision On Swiggy's Objection To Confidential Data Sharing

Does not fix a specific time frame to avoid the firm facing contempt of Court

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to reconsider whether confidential data concerning Swiggy should be shared with a restaurant association, amid the examination of alleged anti-competitive practices by Swiggy and Zomato.

In the Swiggy Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Ors case, the bench of Justice SR Krishna Kumar asked the CCI to decide after hearing Swiggy's objections and submissions by the restaurant association, the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI).

The Judge clarified not expressing an opinion on the rival contentions made before the Court by the CCI, Swiggy and the NRAI. It maintained that the order must not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

The matter pertained to a 2021 probe initiated by the Director General (Investigation) of the CCI on a complaint filed by the NRAI. It was alleged that food delivery apps Swiggy and Zomato were indulging in anti-competitive practices.

The DG's findings were compiled into a report that contained sensitive and confidential business information submitted by Swiggy and Zomato. Therefore, the DG submitted two versions - redacted and unredacted, of the report. The unredacted version retained the confidential information concerning Swiggy and Zomato.

The CCI later created a confidential ring of persons who would have access to the unredacted version of the report.

However, by an order passed on 24 April this year, the CCI allowed the NRAI's representatives to become part of the confidential ring.

Swiggy objected to it, claiming the CCI's order was passed without hearing Swiggy. It filed a petition before the Court to set aside the decision of the CCI. It argued that the CCI order was bereft of any reasons to support its decision.

During the last hearing of the matter, Justice Kumar had suggested that the CCI could reconsider the matter after hearing Swiggy since the primary grievance was that Swiggy's objections were not heard.

After the counsels of the rival parties agreed, the dispute was sent back to the Commission.

The Court noted that if a timeline was fixed for the CCI's fresh decision, it may risk facing contempt of Court proceedings if a decision is not taken within the deadline.

Representing Swiggy, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya contended that the concern could be addressed if the bench ordered that a decision should be made at the earliest. He assured that Swiggy would not seek any unnecessary adjournments before the CCI.

The Court thus directed the CCI to decide on the matter "as expeditiously as possible" in accordance with law.

Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa also appeared for Swiggy before the Court.

The CCI was represented by Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman and advocate Nayanatara BG.

Advocate Abir Roy represented NRAI.