CCI Order refusing interim relief against OLA Cabs in an ongoing investigation upheld by COMPAT |

Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) by its order dated March 09, 2016 has upheld the CCI order dated September 03, 2015 refusing to grant interim injunction against allegations of predatory pricing in an ongoing investigation against M/s ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Ola Cabs).

In a case filed by Fast Track Call cabs , alleging predatory pricing in provision of radio taxi services in Bengaluru by OLA cabs , the CCI had ordered detailed investigation through its order dated 24.04.2015.

However, by an order dated 03.09.2015, the CCI rejected Fast Track’s plea for interim injunction which sought directions from CCI to Fast Track to stop indulging in predatory pricing with immediate effect.

The CCI rejected the application for interim injunction observing that even though a prima-facie case can be said to have been made out in favour of the Fast Track Call Cabs, but the figures cited by the Fast Track were yet to be examined by the DG and neither the Fast Track is going to suffer irreparable loss nor the balance of convenience is in its favour.

The COMPAT has upheld the order of the CCI with the opinion that the discretion exercised by the CCI not to entertain any prayer for interim relief does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity to justify interference by COMPAT.

The COMPAT held that an order of injunction or prayer for interim relief in the nature of injunction can be granted only if the applicant satisfies that he has a strong prima-facie case; that he will suffer irreparable injury, if the injunction/ interim relief prayed for is not granted; that the balance of convenience is in the grant of injunction as against its refusal and that the grant of injunction would be in larger public interest.

The COMPAT noted that it was not yet conclusively established that Ola Cabs had violated Section 4 of the Act. The prayer for interim relief cannot be decided assuming that the allegations stand proved. Further, restricting discounts to public would not be in public interest, especially since that harm cause to the public would not be capable of compensated. The appeal has been dismissed.

About the author

M M SHARMA

 Comdt. (Retd.) M. M. Sharma heads the Competition Law & Policy team in VA since 2009 and has over 30 years’ experience as an Advocate of Delhi High Court and holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Economics of Competition Law from Kings College, London. He has worked in the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as Additional Registrar during 2006-2008 and was responsible for drafting the Implementing Regulations under the Competition Act, 2002. He has experience of working as Head-Legal /In-house Counsel for a large Corporate Group in the Steel and Power sector before joining VA in 2009. He has represented clients as an independent arguing Counsel in landmark cases decided by CCI, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) , High Courts and the Supreme Court. As a prolific writer, he contributes articles and is regularly quoted on competition issues in National Newspapers and interviewed by TV Channels. He also teaches as a visiting faculty in various Universities and Institutions and is widely regarded as a subject expert in various Committees of Apex Business Chambers, such as FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM and PHD CCI.  Mr. Sharma has been mentioned as a “Notable Practitioner” in the “Competition/Antitrust” category of Chambers & Partners (Asia Pacific) Ranking of Leading Lawyers for Business in India for the year 2012 and 2013. VA’s competition law and policy team has also been awarded the Law Firm of the Year Award for “Competition/Antitrust Law” for 2013 by the Indian Business Law Journal. Included as a ‘Recognised Practitioner’ in Individual Lawyers’ranking by Chamber’s Asia Pacific Guide 2020 for Antitrust/Competition Law.