Case Note On Samir Aggrawal V. Competition Commission Of India, 20201

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Competition Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:44:13.016Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:10:37.879Z

CASE NOTE ON SAMIR AGGRAWAL V. COMPETITION

COMMISSION OF INDIA, 20201 Rudrakshi Sharma & Sahaj Joshi, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune Decided on: December 15, 2020 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Narian Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari Equivalent Citation:

AIR 2021 SC 199

Background

of the Case The present matter was appeal arisen from an information filed by an independent legal practitioner (as claimed) on august 13, 2018, seeking an inquiry by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) into the alleged anti-competitive practices of ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (OLA and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. among others. As per the informant’s contention that the companies are engaged in price-fixing agreements which violates the Section 3(4)(e)2 of the Competition Commission Act, 2002 [further referred as “the act”]. The Informant also provided that the Ola and Uber operate as platforms for radio taxi services via mobile applications, which helps the interaction between riders and drivers. Fare calculations on these platforms are determined by algorithms that consider various factors, with the apps also enabling multiple payment methods for users.

It is alleged that the algorithmic pricing employed by Ola and Uber deprives both riders and drivers of the freedom to negotiate fares. Riders are unable to negotiate with individual drivers for rides booked through the apps, and the drivers are not allowed to offer any discounts, as they are bound to accept the price set by the pricing algorithm as per their terms of agreement with the cab aggregators. The working of the app pays the drivers a share of that price after reducing their commission. The argument presented by the informant is that the pricing algorithm artificially manipulates supply and demand, ensuring higher fares for drivers who

1 Samir Aggrawal v. Competition Commission of India, AIR 2021 SC 199

2 Competition Act, 2002 S. 3, Act No. 12 of 2003

would otherwise compete against each other, it is further submitted that OLA and Uber have greater bargaining power than riders in determining prices which provides them the opportunity to implement price discrimination based on rider’s willingness to pay, leading to artificially inflated fares. The informant also made averments regarding resale price maintenance, alleging a contravention of Section 3(4)(e) of the act. On hearing the matter, the CCI issued an order on November 06, 2018 addressing the Informant’s allegations and noted that while it has previously dealt with cases in this sector, and the present contentions are significantly different. As it focuses on the use of algorithms by cab aggregators themselves.

The CCI agreed that the fare estimation through the apps in based on large data sets and various factors, resulting in dynamic pricing that varies for each ride and does not constitute a traditional cartel. The CCI found no evidence of collusion among drivers as there was no agreement or understanding that would indicate a meeting of minds necessary for establishing contravention under Section 3 of the Competition Act. Commission highlighted that the algorithm used by Ola and Uber can lead to lower fares compared to independent taxi drivers, indicating that there is no fixed floor price maintained by the aggregators. The allegation of price-fixing and resale price maintenance were dismissed as, the CCI concluded that no contravention of section 3 had occurred. Furthermore, the CCI addressed price discrimination.

the claim of price discrimination, stating that such scrutiny falls under section 43 of the Act, which was not alleged by the informant. Since, neither Ola nor Uber fulfills the need to be dominate in the market, the CCII found no merit in the allegations of price discrimination. The Commission closed the matter under Section 26 (2)4 Order of the act stating there is no substantial basis for the Informant’s claims. The appellant approached the appellate tribunal, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal [NCLAT] which was delivered its judgement on May 29, 2020. In the appeal the tribunal noted that the issue of resale price maintenance was not pursued by the informant and subsequently examined the locus standi of the appellant.

The NCLAT acknowledged that while the concept of locus standi has been somewhat relaxed in public interest cases, the act requires that a person bringing forth allegations must demonstrate that they have actually suffered a legal injury as consumer/ beneficiary of competitive practices. The NCLAT found no legal injury on behalf of the informant and thus lacked the standing to pursue the case. Further the NLCAT observed

3 Competition Act, 2002, S. 04, Act No. 12 of 2002

4 Competition Act, 2002, S. 26, Act No. 12 of 2002

that the business models of Ola and Uber did not support the allegations of price discrimination. The tribunal rejected the Informant’s assertion that the pricing algorithms facilitated price fixing among drivers, emphasizing that no collusion among drivers had been established. Aggrieved from this order the Informant had presented this appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme court challenging NCLAT’s observation of lack of locus standi on his part. Issues Whether or not amendment made to section 19 (1) (a)5 increased the scope of locus standi of the informant to file information under the said provision in order to initiate an inquiry under section 26 of the Competition Act, 2002. Arguments from the Petition The informant, argued that the findings of NCLAT with reference to the locus standi of him was erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the provisions of the Act.

He while making his case referred to Section 19 and 356 of the act and also including the amendments made to the sections. He argued that the amendments made to Section 19 (1)(a) in the year 2009 substituted the words, “receipt of a complaint” to “receipt of any information” and thus reduced the need of a person being aggrieved to file a complaint and expands the scope to any person with information. Also, the provision itself states information received from, “any person, consumer or their association or trade association.. ” this means that the legislators provided different categories of informant and purposely differentiated consumers.

Also, the informant submitted that with reference to provision of the act dealing with appeal using the term, “person aggrieved” the informant argued that once the person with adequate locus standi provides an information to the CCI and he CCI conducts an inquiry followed by an order against the informant makes the informant a “person aggrieved” and thus makes him eligible to file an appeal in the Appellate Tribunal. Arguments from the Opposite Parties The counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties argued that even if the appellant is

5 Competition Act, 2002, S. 19, Act No. 12 of 2002

6 Competition Act, 2002, S. 35, Act No. 12 of 2002

taken under the ambit of “Informant” for the purposes of section 19, he would not be eligible to file an appeal under section 53-B7 of the act as such a right is only extended to “person aggrieved” and as per literal interpretation such a person is the one who is affected party from the accusations made on the opposite party. He further argued that if such a wide interpretation is drawn it would lead to malicious information, without any valid ground, being filed with the commission under section 19 against parties influenced or funded by the competitors as a strategy to move ahead in the market by making false contentions and impacting the opposite parties goodwill. This could result in negative impact on the share values of the companies in the share market. This loss could remain non-compensated and thus affect the market of the country as well.

Judgement The court agreed with the appellant’s argument with reference to interpretation of the amendments made to the relevant provision. The court believed that earlier only receipt of complaint was permissible which can be inferred as only by complainants and thus only the person affected by the actions of a party. However, the amendments now allows receipt of any information which relaxes the need of being the affected party to bring in any information regarding contravention of the provisions of the act by any party. This highlights the public interest and welfare objective of formation of the commission under the act.

The court further stated that so far as the problem of malicious information is concerned the remedy is provided under section 458 of the act which provide compensation up to 1 Crore rupees in case of malicious information along with any other order as the court deems fit. It is also observed by the court that 2009 regulations support this interpretation by not requiring informants to demonstrate personal grievance, focusing instead on the factual basis of the alleged contravention. The court also upheld the concurrent findings of the commission and NCLAT, which determined that Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices among drivers, who operate independently. The apex court did not find any reason to interfere with these conclusions and this the appeal was dismissed.

7 Competition Act, 2002, S. 53-B, Act No. 12 of 2002

8 Competition Act, 2002, S. 45, Act No. 12 of 2002

Conclusion

It evidently clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court believes the scope of “any person” in Section 19(1)(a) of the act to be wide and include a person without any legal injury with respect to the information brought in by him. However, the issue does not seem to come to an end as many professionals in the field argue that the remedy in case of filing of malicious or fake or false information isn’t adequate enough. As the loss incurred by the parties can extend to hundreds of crores and the maximum compensation provided is limited to one crore. Also, the goodwill of the party would be tainted as well. It is also to note that it could lead to waste of commission’s resources and time to deal with such meritless matters. One might argue that the party could go ahead to file a different suit of defamation against the informant in case of huge loss.

Nevertheless, it can be observed that though the matter has met its procedural end the issue is yet to be practically resolved.