Latest news with #Testbook
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
SC stays Madras HC order in Testbook suit against Google Play Store billing
Academy 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 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 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 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 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 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
SC stays Madras HC order allowing Testbook's suit against Google billing
Supreme Court has put a pause on a Madras High Court order that allowed ed-tech firm Testbook to go ahead with its case against Google over billing policies on the Play Store Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday stayed a Madras High Court order that had allowed a civil suit filed by ed-tech firm Testbook Edu Solutions against Google India to proceed, Bar and Bench reported. The stay was granted by a Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, while hearing an appeal filed by Google challenging the High Court's earlier ruling dated June 11. HC had rejected Google's plea to dismiss suit In its June order, the Madras High Court had dismissed Google's plea under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a court to reject a plaint at the initial stage. Google had sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that it was barred under the Competition Act and the Payment and Settlement Systems (PSS) Act. Testbook's challenge to Google billing rules Testbook, which operates over 700 mobile applications that provide government exam preparation services, filed the civil suit in July 2023. The company challenged Google's billing policies, including the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) and User Choice Billing (UCB), which impose service fees ranging from 15 per cent to 30 per cent. Testbook argued that these billing models amounted to a "unilateral novation" of its agreement with Google. It claimed the policies violated public policy and exerted undue economic pressure on developers. The firm said it could face revenue losses of up to 26 per cent, and alleged that Google had built its market position by offering services for free in earlier years. In its suit, Testbook also took objection to Clause 15.3 of Google's Developer Distribution Agreement (DDA). This clause limits the legal remedies available to developers, stating that their only option in case of disagreement is to stop using the Play Store. Testbook described the clause as "arbitrary" and claimed it violated the Indian Contract Act. Google's defence Google had argued that the civil suit should be dismissed because the issues raised fell within the domain of the Competition Act and the PSS Act. It also pointed out that similar suits by other developers had previously been rejected by the high court. The tech company relied on past judgments and an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the DDA to make its case, the news report said. High court found Testbook's case distinct The Madras High Court, however, had found Testbook's claims different from earlier cases. It held that the issues raised were specific to Testbook and involved personal contractual grievances, including waiver and tortious interference, rather than competition law violations. It also rejected Google's arguments based on the PSS Act and the jurisdiction clause in the agreement. With the SC now staying the high court's order, proceedings in the civil suit have come to a temporary halt. The apex court will now examine whether contractual disputes of this nature can be heard in civil courts despite arguments of statutory bar under other laws.
