On Wednesday, the Karnataka High Court instructed the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to reconsider whether confidential data concerning Swiggy should be shared with a restaurant association, amid the investigation into allegedly anti-competitive practices by Swiggy and Zomato [Swiggy Limited v. Competition Commission of India and others].
Justice SR Krishna Kumar directed the CCI to make a decision on this matter after hearing Swiggy’s objections and the submissions by the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI).
The Court urged the CCI to address the issue promptly, though it did not set a specific deadline.
Justice Kumar emphasized that he had not formed any opinion on the arguments presented by the CCI, Swiggy, and the NRAI before the High Court.
He also clarified that today’s order should not be considered a precedent in any other case.
This case arose from a 2021 complaint by the NRAI, alleging anti-competitive practices by food delivery apps Swiggy and Zomato, which led to a CCI investigation.
The Director General (Investigation) of the CCI had conducted a probe and compiled a report containing sensitive and confidential business information from Swiggy and Zomato. Consequently, the DG submitted both a redacted and an unredacted version of the report, the latter containing the confidential information.
The CCI established a confidential ring of persons with access to the unredacted report. However, an order issued on April 24 allowed NRAI’s representatives to join this confidential ring.
Swiggy objected to this order, claiming it was issued without hearing their objections, and petitioned the Karnataka High Court to overturn the CCI’s decision.
Swiggy argued that the CCI order lacked justification for allowing NRAI’s representatives access to its confidential data.
During the previous hearing, Justice Krishna Kumar suggested the CCI reconsider the matter after hearing Swiggy’s objections, as their primary grievance was the lack of a hearing.
After all parties agreed to this suggestion, the dispute was referred back to the CCI.
The Court acknowledged concerns that setting a timeline for the CCI’s new decision might result in contempt of court if the deadline was not met.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Swiggy, proposed addressing this concern by ordering a decision at the earliest and assured that Swiggy would not seek unnecessary adjournments before the CCI.
Consequently, the Court instructed the CCI to decide “as expeditiously as possible” in accordance with the law, after hearing the NRAI and Swiggy’s objections.
Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa also represented Swiggy, while Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman and advocate Nayanatara BG represented the CCI. Advocate Abir Roy represented the NRAI.
The order copy is awaited.
