May 19, 2024

Nasdaq-listed MakeMyTrip has filed a writ petition earlier than the Delhi Prime Courtroom difficult the interlocutory order handed through the Nationwide Corporate Legislation Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on December 6, wherein its attraction in opposition to the CCI order levying a penalty of ₹223 crore for anti-competitive habits was once admitted topic to deposit of 10 in keeping with cent of the penalty.  

In its writ, MMT has contended that NCLAT handed the order with out jurisdiction, in gross violation of the foundations of herbal justice. It has additionally averred that the order handed is with out due software of thoughts to related components, and is unfair, unreasonable, and untenable in regulation, thereby inflicting grave prejudice to MMT in violation of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Charter of India. 

Comparable Tales
CCI slaps ₹400-crore penalty on MakeMyTrip-Goibibo, OYO

Pageant watchdog additionally directs MMT-Cross to take away/ abandon its agreements round ‘value parity’ and ‘room parity’

Within the memorandum of attraction, it’s been highlighted that Phase 53 B of the Pageant Act, 2002 confers a proper upon anyone aggrieved through the required route, determination, or order handed through CCI to desire an attraction to NCLAT, accompanied through such price as could also be prescribed. 

“The statutory provision does now not impose any situation of pre-deposit for entertaining the attraction” added the petition.

NCLAT’s Pre-Deposit Situation  

It can be recalled that NCLAT had remaining Tuesday stayed the ₹223.48-crore penalty levied through CCI on Nasdaq-listed MakeMyTrip-Goibibo (MMT-Cross) for indulging in anti-competitive practices. The keep on penalty was once granted topic to MMT-Cross depositing 10 in keeping with cent of the penalty quantity.

Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Recommend, Ideal Courtroom and previous Legal professional Common of India, had gave the impression on behalf of MMT and pressed for whole keep of all the CCI order. On the other hand, the NCLAT Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar, Member (Judicial) and Ashok Kumar Mishra, Member (Technical), declined to accede to this request of keep on complete CCI order. The Bench stayed handiest the penalty section on deposit of 10 in keeping with cent and no keep was once granted at the non financial measures directed through the CCI.

MMT-GO had in November filed an attraction earlier than NCLAT in opposition to CCI order of October 19 levying a penalty of ₹223.48 crore in opposition to them. CCI additionally directed MMT-Cross to switch its marketplace behaviour and, specifically, regulate its agreements with inns to be able to take away the cost and room availability parity responsibilities imposed through it on its resort companions with admire to different On-line Commute Companies.

In the similar order, CCI had additionally levied a separate penalty of ₹168.88 crore on OYO, which had filed an attraction earlier than NCLAT on November 15. NCLAT had later granted OYO a keep in this penalty on deposit of 10 in keeping with cent.

Attraction earlier than NCLAT

In its attraction earlier than NCLAT, MMT-Cross had pleaded that the CCI order suffers from severe elementary flaws, together with violation of the foundations of herbal justice, non-application of thoughts, failure to believe financial proof on document, failure to fulfill the prescribed prison, and jurisdictional same old important to discover a contravention of the provisions of the Pageant Act, 2002. 

The attraction argues that the impugned order selectively rubber-stamps the one-sided observations and conclusions of the Director Common, CCI, with out even adverting to the submissions made through MMT-Cross in some circumstances, let by myself discharge its statutory legal responsibility to move talking orders. The attraction additionally incorporates that cross-examination lawsuits had been by no means finished through the DG.

Criticism earlier than CCI

The honest industry watchdog opened an investigation in opposition to MMT-Cross and OYO in 2019, after Federation of Resort & Eating place Associations of India (FHRAI) lodged a grievance with it alleging that MMT-Cross imposed a worth parity of their settlement with resort companions, wherein, the resort companions don’t seem to be allowed to promote their rooms at some other platform or by itself on-line portal at a worth underneath the cost at which it’s being presented on MMT-Cross’s platform. 

Additionally, the resort companions are mandated to watch room parity, wherein they can not refuse to offer rooms on MMT-Cross at any given cut-off date if the rooms are being equipped on some other platform. Additional, it was once alleged that MMT and OYO entered into confidential business agreements, in which, MMT has agreed to offer preferential remedy to OYO on its platform.