This Tuesday the Supreme Court expressed concern over the fate of smaller players in the market as the e-commerce major Flipkart was known for creating monopolies.

Supreme Court Raising Concerns Over Flipkart Creating Monopolies

For this case, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh appointed an amicus curiae which is aimed to assist them in the adjudication of the dispute arising out of an National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

NCLAT ordered the fair trade regulator Competition Commission of India (CCI) to initiate a probe against Flipkart for an alleged use of its dominant position.

The bench was surprised that the complainant All India Online Vendors Association (AIOVA) which alleged unfair trade practices by Flipkart was nowhere to be found as its lawyers had no instructions from the body.

It was possible that the organisation was disbanded or no longer existed, said Advocate Udayaditya Banerjee, appearing for AIOVA.

Flipkart Offering Discount & Disrupting Business Of Small Players

Further, the bench told Flipkart’s counsel that they would like to examine the issue of creating a monopoly.

They further observed,”We want big players to come and invest here but at the same time we are worried about the dragon’s mouth…it is a serious issue and we have to keep the interest of consumers and small players in mind. Some balancing authority is needed.”

The Flipkart counsel claimed that many small vendors were able to take their businesses to the national level, due to the platform.

Sometimes, Flipkart offered so much discount that it disrupted the business of small players and the balance of the market according to Justice Kant.

Further, he asked Banerjee to assist the court in the matter saying otherwise it would be an uneven fight.

Moving ahead, the bench emphasized that it did not matter whether the complainant AIOVA was before it or not as it would like to examine the issue in detail.

The bench mentioned that they are critical of CCI being represented through lawyers and they asked why a quasi judicial body was being represented in the case.

Clarifying Justice Kant said,”It has passed the order, good or bad. It’s (CCI) job is over. Why should the authority be here in a case? Tomorrow, we can’t ask the high court to be here in every case.”

In response to this, the top court was informed that due to an order of the apex court, the CCI was represented in every case.

This matter is posted by the bench posted during August.

Responding to the same, Flipkart challenged the March 4, 2020 order of the NCLAT further asking the CCI to initiate the investigation against Flipkart for an alleged use of its dominant position.