Cab aggregator Uber has refuted allegations levelled by its Indian rival Meru that it is resorting to unfair trade practices, including predatory pricing, and pleaded to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to quash the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) order directing a probe against it.Appearing before a bench of Justices Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar, Uber's counsel Kapil Sibal contended that the company was not a dominant player in online transportation sector and there was no possibility of it misusing its position as a market leader.
He said Ola has greater market share in comparison to Uber.
Uber approached the apex court challenging the order passed by the tribunal which had on December 7 directed the fair trade watchdog, Competition Commission of India (CCI), to conduct a fresh probe against it for allegedly indulging in unfair practices.
The tribunal had passed the order on a plea of Meru Travels Solution accusing the multi-national company of resorting to abusive practices with an intent to establish its monopoly and eliminate competitors by granting huge discounts and incentives to its customers.
Challenging the tribunal's verdict, Uber told the SC that the order was illegal and suffered from “jurisdictional flaw“ as the tribunal itself had come to the conclusion that there was prima facie nothing against it.
Sibal said companies reduced tariff due to intense competition and to attract customers. He said such practices could not be termed as predatory pricing.“Companies often reduce price of their products and services to generate competition. It is happening in telecom sector. Look at what Jio is doing. It is providing free telecom and data services to its customers. It is intensifying competition among companies and there is nothing wrong in it,“ he said.
Sibal contended that probe against a company for allegedly resorting to unfair trade practices could be ordered only if there was a prima facie finding against it and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to order fresh probe without having any proof.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Meru, opposed his plea and contended that the tribunal passed a reasoned order and the court should not quash it.The hearing remained inconclusive and would resume on Thursday . The apex court had earlier ordered status quo, virtually staying the probe ordered by the tribunal.
The corporate battle between Uber and Meru started after the Indian company filed a complaint against the multi-national company alleging that it was resorting to unfair practices. It claimed that Uber was spending about $885 million to generate a revenue of $415 million.
0 comments:
Post a Comment