1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

WRIT PETITION No.13422/2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.3, RMZ INFINITY -TOWER E
OLD MADRAS ROAD
4TH AND 5TH FLOORS
BENGALURU- 560016.

REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED

REPRESENTATIVE AND SENIOR LEGAL
COUNSEL, MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

2. ALPHABET INC
A CORPORATION ORGANISED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF DELWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT

1600 AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 940 43
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

REPT. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY

MR. R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF ALPHABET INC.
 2

3. GOOGLE LLC
A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

251 LITTLE FALLS DRIVE
WIMINGOTN DE 19808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED
ATTORNEY, MR. R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE LLC.

4. GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF IRELAND

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

THE GOOGLE BUILDING
GORDON HOUSE
4 BARROW ST. DUBLIN
D04, E5W5 IRELAND.

REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED

ATTORNEY, MR. R SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED.

5. GOOGLE INDIA DIGITAL SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
UNIT 207, 2ND FLOOR
SIGANTURE TOWER -II, TOWER A
SECTOR 15 PART II TOWER A
GURGAON -122001, HARYANA.

REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

AND SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL
 3

MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI GOPAL SUBRAMANIAM, ADV. AND

SRI SAJAN POOVAIAH, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SRI DHARMENDRA CHATUR, ADV. AND
SRI ABRAHAM JOSEPH ANEY, ADV.)

AND:

1. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

A COMMISSION ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002
9TH FLOOR, OFFICE BLOCK- 1
KIDWAI NAGAR (EAST)
OPPOSITE RING ROAD
NEW DELHI-110023
REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. ALLIANCE OF DIGITAL INDIA FOUNDATION

A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
4054-B-5 AND 6, VASANT KUNJ
NEW DELHI -110070
REPT. BY ITS DIRECTOR.

3. MATCH GROUP INC.,

A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT

8750 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY
SUIT 1400, DALLAS, TEXAS 752 31
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPT. BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND HEAD OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS AND POLICY.
…RESPONDENTS
 4

(BY SRI HARISH NARASAPPA, SE.COUNSEL A/W

SMT. NAYANATARA B.G., ADV. FOR R1
SRI GOUTAMADITYA S, ADV. FOR R2
SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SMT. SONAM MATHUR, SRI DINOR MUTHAPPA,
SRI DHRUV DIKSHIT, ADVS. FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER-1 DATED 30.05.2022 AS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE
EXTENT IT DENIES THE PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR REVISION OF
THE NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION OF THE DG REPORT AND
CONTAINS PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS;
THE ENTIRETY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER- 2 DATED 14.06.2022 AT
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Heard Sri Gopal Subramaniam and Sri Sajjan Poovayya

learned Senior Counsels along with Sri Dharmendra Chattar

and Sri Abraham Joseph, learned counsels for the petitioners,

Sri Harish Narasappa, learned Senior Counsel along with

Smt. Nayanatara B.G., learned counsel for 1st respondent,

Sri Goutamaditya S. learned counsel for 2nd respondent and

Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel along

Smt. Sonam Mattur, learned counsel for 3rd respondent.

Perused the writ petition papers.

 5

2. Petitioners are before this Court under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India questioning the impugned

order dated 30.5.2022 in case Nos.35 and 14/2021 wherein

petitioners are directed to conduct inspection of case records

if so desired, and thereafter file objections/suggestions, if

any, to the investigation report latest by 30.06.2022 along

with a brief synopsis and also the order dated 17.06.2022

wherein the petitioners are allowed to file their

objections/suggestions if any, to the investigation report as

well as to the IRA latest by 07.07.2022.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gopal Subramaniam would

submit that the Director General (for short the ‘DG’)

submitted confidential and non-confidential version of the

investigation report to the 1st respondent– Competition

Commission of India (for short ‘the Commission’). The

petitioners were supplied with non-confidential version of the

DGs report on 16.03.2022 and the confidential version of the

 6

DGs report on 17.6.2022. Learned Senior Counsel would

submit that the report runs into nearly 13,000 pages and

includes 27 pen drives. Moreover, the learned Senior Counsel

would submit that all the relevant material in its entirety, is

not supplied to the petitioners even to this date. Further he

submits that petitioners have suggested names of CRMs on

2nd June 2022. Further it is submitted that having regard to

the volume of DGs report, time granted by the 1st respondent–

Commission to submit their objections on or before

07.07.2022 is unreasonable, which cannot be complied in the

facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Senior Counsel

would submit that looking into the DGs report, which runs to

more than 13,000 pages and 27 pen drives, the petitioners

require minimum of 8 weeks to submit their version.

4. Learned Senior Counsel inviting attention of this Court

to para 25 of the order dated 17.06.2022 (Annexure-B)

submits that 1st respondent-Commission, before hearing the

petitioners has come to a conclusion and has directed the

 7

petitioners to make submissions on the quantum of penalty,

which may be levied by the Commission in the event of

GOOGLE being held in contravention of the provisions of the

Act. It is contended that, making submission with regard to

quantum of penalty would not arise at this stage, and the 1st

respondent be directed to hear the case on merits, without

being influenced by observations made in the impugned

orders.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Sajjan Poovaya for the

petitioners also submits that the GOOGLE CRMs have been

permitted to review the confidential version of the records for

an hour or two in a day and in that process scrutiny of

13,000 pages and 27 pen drives would take long time.

Further he submits that some of the material have been

furnished to the petitioners yesterday i.e., on 05.07.2022.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Harish Narasappa for 1st

respondent–Commission, would submit that the time line is

 8

fixed under the Competition Act 2002 (for short ‘the 2002

Act’) to dispose off the matter by the Commission. Further it

is submitted that petitioners are seeking further time to

submit its comments/version on the DGs report only with a

view to prolong the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel

would submit that petitioners were required to suggest names

of the CRMs in pursuance to order dated 18.04.2022, but the

same was filed by the petitioners only on 02.06.2022.

Learned Senior Counsel on instructions would submit that in

the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners could be

given 10 more days time to submit its comments or objections

on DGs report and prays for passing appropriate order.

7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa for 3rd

respondent would submit that, scrutinizing DGs report and

27 pen drives, would not be a big task especially for the

petitioners and it would not need 8 weeks time to file its

comments or objections as prayed by learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioners.

 9

8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for the

parties and on going through the entire writ petition papers,

in the facts and circumstances, it would be reasonable to

extend time till 30.07.2022 to the petitioners to submit their

comments or objections to the DGs report.

9. Under the provisions of the 2002 Act the Commission is

empowered to enquire into the alleged contravention of the

provisions of the Act. Section 26 provides for procedure for

enquiry under Section 19. Section 36 enumerates the power

of Commission to regulate its own procedure. Section 41

provides the Director General to investigate contraventions,

when so directed by the Commission, assist the Commission

in investigation into any contravention of provisions of the Act

or any Rules or Regulations made there under. Rule 20 of

CCI (General) Regulations 2009 (for short ‘the 2009

Regulations’) provides for investigation by Director General

 10

and Rule 21 provides for procedure for enquiry under Section

26 of the 2002 Act.

10. Under Section 26 of the 2002 Act and under Regulation

21 of the 2009 Regulations, the Commission shall forward the

DGs report to the concerned parties inviting

objections/suggestions. In the case on hand, the Director

General after investigation submitted report on 16.03.2022 to

the CCI. The CCI forwarded the non-confidential version of

the report to the petitioners on 16.03.2022 and confidential

version on 17.06.2022. There is no dispute with regard to the

fact that the report runs into nearly 13,000 pages and 27 pen

drives. Whatever, be the men and machinery possessed by

the petitioners, definitely, the voluminous records need

reasonable time to be scrutinized and to submit objections /

suggestions. It is true that petitioners were initially granted

time up to 30.06.2022, which was further extended up to

07.07.2022 to submit their objections / suggestions.

Admittedly time line is prescribed under the 2002 Act for

 11

disposal of the proceedings before the CCI. But at the same

time, the parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to put

forth their case, depending on the facts and material on

record. The time to submit their objections to DGs report

shall be commensurate with the nature of allegation and the

voluminous records placed on record. Therefore, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, time is extended till

30.07.2022 to the petitioners to submit their objections /

suggestions.

11. Learned Senior Counsel invited attention of this Court,

to the observations made by the CCI during the course of its

order to say that the CCI could not have asked the petitioners

to make its submissions on the quantum of penalty at this

stage. The said observation by the Commission is, in the

event GOOGLE is to be held in contravention of the provisions

of the 2002 Act, during the hearing. It is for the petitioners to

include submission on the quantum of penalty, which may be

levied by the Commission in the event GOOGLE is to be held

 12

in contravention of the provisions of the 2002 Act or to

submit its objections on the quantum subsequent to hearing.

The CCI shall proceed to hear the parties to the proceedings

without being influenced by any of the observations made

during the course of passing interim orders.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands

disposed of.

Sd/-
JUDGE

NG* CT:bms