The Karnataka High Court remains uncertain about its jurisdiction regarding Swiggy’s plea against a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order. Justice MGS Kamal expressed doubts during a May 21 hearing and reiterated them today. Swiggy’s counsel, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya, argued that past rulings suggest the High Court can handle disputes with nationwide implications if some aspect of the cause of action occurs within its territorial jurisdiction. However, Justice Kamal noted that this crucial detail isn’t evident in Swiggy’s submissions beyond receiving the CCI order in Karnataka.
Poovayya admitted that the pleading could have been clearer and requested permission from the Court to submit an additional affidavit to clarify the issue of territorial jurisdiction. He emphasized Swiggy’s national contracts and the CCI’s findings that Swiggy dominated South India while Zomato dominated North India. Justice Kamal stressed the importance of the “cause of action” in previous judgments and expressed the Court’s need for clarity.
Despite objections from the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Venkataraman, who argued for a different jurisdiction, the Court scheduled further hearings for May 28 and allowed Swiggy to submit an additional affidavit. The case revolves around confidential information shared by Swiggy with the CCI regarding allegations by the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) of anti-competitive practices by Swiggy and Zomato.
The CCI’s decision to grant NRAI access to this information, challenged by Swiggy, forms the crux of the dispute.
