Supreme Court To Decide Clubbing Preferred Sellers' Cases On Amazon, Flipkart On Monday

The Supreme Court’s hearing on clubbing the cases pertaining to the Competition Commission of India's probe against Amazon and Flipkart was inconclusive on Friday and will be heard again on Dec. 16.

The competition watchdog had sought the transfer of all 24 cases to either the top court or the Delhi High Court and alleged that at least 20 e-tailers attempted to “scuttle the investigation” into anti-competitive practices by the two e-commerce giants.

The SC bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Pankaj Mittal said that the CCI would not receive preferential treatment by having the division bench hear the petitions directly. “Some litigant has to be given special treatment; bypass the rules; we can't place it directly to the division bench,” Justice Oka said.

The bench further questioned why the case should go to the Supreme Court, proposing that it be consolidated in a single High Court instead. They also noted that the SC had previously shifted all cases to a single High Court in instances that were similar.

Justice Oka suggested that the Karnataka High Court be ordered to hear all applications. However, Attorney General for India R. Venkatramani, representing CCI, requested a transfer to the Delhi High Court, as a matter is already being heard by the Karnataka High Court's single bench at the moment. The case will be further discussed on Monday.

The issue concerns a 2020 antitrust investigation into Amazon and Flipkart for providing preferential treatment to select e-tailers, such as Cloudtail India Pvt., Samsung India Electronics Pvt., Vivo Mobile India Pvt., and Appario Retail Pvt.

The inquiry report also noted that smartphone makers Vivo and Samsung were charged with collaborating with these e-commerce majors to launch products exclusively online, in breach of competition regulations.

CCI’s measures against Flipkart and Amazon have been temporarily suspended by the Karnataka High Court due to procedural irregularities made by the Director General of the CCI throughout the probe. It has been noted that it was against customary protocol for DG to reclassify vendors who were originally designated as "third parties" to "opposite parties" without first obtaining CCI permission.