PremiumBENGALURU : Online retailers Flipkart and Amazon India filed separate petitions to a division bench challenging the Karnataka high court’s decision last week to allow the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to continue its investigation against them.
Both petitions are expected to be heard on Friday in front of a two-judge division bench, an individual aware of the discussions said on condition of anonymity.
Mint had reported earlier that Amazon India and Flipkart were looking to challenge the court’s decision to dismiss their plea. Last week, the court had quashed the e-commerce players’ plea to restrain CCI from resuming its probe relating to the alleged abuse of market dominance on their platforms.
“Amazon and Flipkart are expecting that the division bench will grant them a stay on the matter. Both companies are expected to highlight the gaps in the original claim by Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM) and the subsequent investigation undertaken by CCI. Further, the companies believe that CCI has begun investigation on the matter before even reaching out to these platforms, which led them to file a writ petition with the Karnataka high court," said the person quoted above.
In 2019, DVM, a group of owners of micro, small and medium enterprises, submitted a plea with CCI against Flipkart and Amazon for abusing their market dominance and giving preferential listing and deep discounting on products sold by select vendors in which they control indirect stakes. The body contended that the alleged practices by these companies hurt small businesses. Based on this plea, CCI directed the director general of CCI to launch a probe in January 2020 for alleged violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act.
As a part of the recent hearings, the Flipkart counsel argued that in case of preferential treatment, no (seller) agreement has been placed before CCI for it to start the investigation. “The Commission must form a prima facie opinion before ordering investigation. No agreement is placed on record. Therefore, the Commission did not have ‘jurisdictional facts’ while considering the information. It has not recorded its prima facie opinion. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law," read the contention made by the Flipkart counsel before Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!