Supreme Court notice to Ola on Meru's plea
Supreme Court notice to Ola on Meru's plea
Earlier, the Director-General of the Competition Commission of India had concluded that no unfair practice was involved
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Ola Cabs in the appeal filed by Meru Cabs regarding anti-competitive practices by the former.
The apex court assailed the order of the National Company Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refusing to set aside the order passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) exonerating Ola from allegations of abuse of dominant position.
The bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai took note of the concurrent findings by NCLAT and the Director-General (DG) of CCI.
(Earlier, Justice PS Narasimha had recused himself from hearing the appeal citing his appearance for the cab service provider in another case as a lawyer).
Meru had contended before the CCI that Ola had indulged in predatory pricing and entered into anti-competitive agreements with its drivers.
The Commission found the allegation to have some merit and ordered the DG to investigate the matter. But, in 2017, based on the DG's investigation report, the CCI concluded that Ola had not indulged in any unfair practice.
Appearing on behalf of Meru, Senior Advocate P Chidambaram submitted before the bench that the law regarding the abuse of dominant position had been laid down by the top court in other such cases, including Uber India.
He argued that NCLAT had unusually interpreted the apex court judgment. The advocate submitted, "The Tribunal says that the interpretation of the law made by the Supreme Court applied only at prima facie stage and not the final stage. This is an unusual argument."
Referring to the Competition Act, 2002 which deals with abuse of dominant position, he maintained that the DG had, in fact, found Ola to be operating below the cost, incurring Rs.340 loss per trip.
He submitted, "Below cost price is in my favor, entire competition wiped out is in my favor."
To this, Justice Rao remarked, "Otherwise, on both the points the finding is against you."
On the other hand, appearing on behalf of Ola, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi that as per the statutory provision, the first dominant position was to be established, then abuse of that dominance was to be demonstrated, and finally, it was to be shown that the abuse had an anti-competitive effect.
He highlighted that all the three forums were in favor of Ola with respect to the allegation of abuse of the dominant position.
Referring to the case law relied upon by Chidambaram, he contended that even in that matter, Uber was not found to be abusing a dominant position, and the appeal challenging the same was pending adjudication.
