SC stays Madras HC order in Testbook suit against Google Play Store billing
Empower your mind, elevate your skills
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Madras High Court 's order that allowed continuation of the proceedings on the Testbook Edu Solutions ' petition against Google India Digital Services ' updated payment policies relating to its proprietary Google Play Store A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stayed the HC's June 11 order that dismissed Google 's petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a court to reject a plaint at the initial stage.The HC had dismissed Google's contention that Testbook's suit was barred under the Competition Act, 2002, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. The HC had held that Testbook's suit contained contractual issues that fell within its jurisdiction and could not be dismissed on the threshold.Testbook, which operates over 700 mobile applications for government exam preparation, had challenged the search engine giant's Google Play Billing System and User Choice Billing, which mandate service fees ranging from 15% to 30% from application developers. Google's policies amounted to a unilateral novation of its agreement with application developers, and they were contrary to public policy and imposed undue economic duress on the developers, Testbook alleged.Google told the SC that the Testbook's suit was barred under the Competition Act, which expressly ousts civil jurisdiction in respect of matters within the domain of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Further, the allegations concerning the Payment and Settlement Systems Act are solely within the purview of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as the sectoral regulator, it argued.Senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for Google, said that the single judge of the HC held that the plaint filed by Testbook is maintainable despite the Division Bench of the same HC conclusively ruling that identical claims by other similarly placed parties were barred under Section 61 of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.'The impugned judgment is therefore an outlier decision, rendered contrary to binding precedent, which should be corrected by the SC. It also implicates important issues of principle, including the exclusive scope of the powers of two specialist regulators: the Competition Commission of India and the Reserve Bank of India, conferred by statute. Not only are these exclusive powers important as a matter of regulatory coherence and principle, they also exist to avoid fragmented or inconsistent outcomes and floods of individual suits concerning the same contract: one which the CCI is in fact already examining in a pending investigation,' Google stated in its appeal.Google objected to the maintainability of the connected suits under Order Vll Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, saying the Division Bench had upheld the rejection of the connected suits filed by similarly placed mobile app developers, explicitly holding that claims stemming from allegations of abuse of dominant market position fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the CCI and not that of the civil courts on account of Section 61 of the Competition Act.'The Testbook plaint is materially identical in its allegations, reliefs, and cause of action to these previously rejected connected suits, particularly the plaint filed by another app developer, Nasadiya Technologies,' the tech giant stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
South Africa's Ramaphosa Fires Back At Trump's Tariffs, Calls Them 'Unjust And Punitive'
/ Aug 06, 2025, 04:23AM IST South Africa has unveiled urgent support measures to counter the economic fallout from a new 30% tariff imposed by the United States on certain exports, effective August 7. President Cyril Ramaphosa called the tariffs 'very punitive,' and trade officials announced financial aid, exemptions under the Competition Act, and a plan to use the country's unemployment fund to reduce job losses. He vowed urgent action to protect jobs and the economy, unveiling financial support and legal exemptions to help local firms cope. Watch
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
'One of the worst orders': In a 1st, SC bars HC judge from hearing criminal cases
NEW DELHI: Enraged by what it termed "one of the worst and most erroneous orders we have come across", Supreme Court has pulled up Allahabad HC's Justice Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. Questioning Kumar's competence in deciding criminal cases, SC, in an unprecedented order, directed he shouldn't be given any criminal case for adjudication till he retires, and must be made to sit with a seasoned judge of the HC in a division bench. "The judge has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what's wrong with judiciary at the level of HC," Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said. SC: Passing of such absurd & erroneous orders unpardonable SC said at times "we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is unpardonable". It said the erroneous order was not an exception as Justice Kumar had passed similarly unpardonable ones over a period of time, which left them with no option but to take the extreme step. The case pertains to sale of goods and payment between two businessmen. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo The seller had delivered goods worth Rs 52.34 lakh out of which he was paid Rs 47.75 lakh. As the balance amount was not paid, he lodged a criminal case, leading to the other businessman to move HC for quashing the case. While allowing criminal proceedings in the case, a single bench of Justice Kumar justified his decision, saying that the complainant would not be in a position to pursue the civil litigation as it will take years and he will have to put more money to pursue the litigation. "To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money. If this court allows the matter to be referred to civil court on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no.2 (complainant) would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in a position to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter," he had said. Expressing shock over the stand taken by the judge the SC bench said, "Is it the understanding of the high court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded... are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations... It was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. "It was expected of the HC to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the HC has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit," it said. The bench quashed the order and directed that the case be reconsidered by the HC but by another judge. "The chief justice of the high court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the judge concerned. The chief justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the HC. We further direct that the judge concerned shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination," the apex court said.
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Top Court Bars High Court Judge From Hearing Criminal Cases Till Retirement
New Delhi: In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court has stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge "till he demits office" after he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. Taking stern view on the order passed by the judge, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed removal of criminal matters from his roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the order passed by the high court judge "erroneous", the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. "The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable," the bench said. The top court was hearing a challenge to high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In this case, the complainant (Lalita Textiles) delivered goods in the form of thread to Shikhar Chemicals worth Rs 52.34 lakh of which an amount of Rs 47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea of the applicant. On August 4, the top court observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Terming the high court's take on the issue as "shocking", the bench said, "It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order." The order continued, "It was expected of the high court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the high court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit." The bench said in such circumstances it was left with no other option but to set aside the high court order even without issuing notice to the respondents. "We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court (sic)," the top court said. The bench further directed that the judge not be assigned any criminal matter, till he demitted office. "If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination." Saying it was "constrained" to pass such directions, the top court noted it was not the only "erroneous order of the judge" that it came across for the first time. "Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time," the bench lamented.
