NCDRC
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While deciding upon the instant complaint concerning alleged unfair trade practice followed by Flipkart of tampering with a product’s MRP, the Bench of Mamidi Christopher (President), S. Sandhya Rani and K. Venkateshwarlu (Members) observed that there is tripartite contract between the seller, service provider (herein ‘Flipkart’) and the consumer. The seller and service provider are liable for any defect, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the services provided or good/product sold by them. It was held that Flipkart had tampered with the original MRP of the product (herein ‘oil sachet’) and charged an amount more than the MRP from the consumer, thereby illegally extorting the consumer and causing economic loss and mental agony. Flipkart’s conduct thereby falls within the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Facts of the Case: Flipkart engages in providing trading/selling facilities over the internet through its website flipkart.com and mobile application- an online marketplace. Flipkart. The Complainant ordered 2 Freedom Refined Sunflower Oil pouches (1000 ml. each) from Flipkart and the order was successfully delivered on 25-04-2021. The value of the order is Rs. 480 (each oil packet cost Rs. 240), the shipping charge- Rs. 103 and total price was Rs. 583.

After receiving the order, the complainant discovered that Flipkart was selling the product at a price which was more than the MRP. The MRP was wiped off the products, however the complainant stated that the MRP of the oil pouches was Rs. 170, while the complainant had to pay Rs. 240 (total Rs. 480) for each oil pouch. As per the complainant, Flipkart in total collected extra Rs. 140/- on MRP.

Contentions

The complainant submitted that wiping -off the MRP amounts to an unethical and unfair trade practice which also amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant further stated that due to the sufferings caused by COVID-19 it has become very hard to meet basic needs; but the E- Commerce portals are raking in huge cash by selling more than MRP.

Per- contra, Flipkart denied the allegations and contended that the 2017 Amendment in Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 2011, provides that an E-Commerce entity shall ensure that all monetary declarations as specified in the Rules shall be displayed on the digital and electronic network used for e-commerce transactions. The responsibility for the correctness of such declaration shall lie with the manufacturer, the seller or the importer. It was submitted that a market-place model e-commerce entity, such as flipkart.com, has been exempted by the Rules from any responsibility regarding correctness of the information provided by the seller.

Flipkart further contended that it only acts as an intermediary through its web interface and provides a medium to various sellers all over India. It was argued that these sellers are separate entity being controlled and managed by different persons/stake holders; and Flipkart directly or indirectly does not sell any products. All the products on Flipkart platform are sold by third party sellers who avail the online market-place service so provided, and the terms are decided by the respective sellers only.

It was submitted by Flipkart that the contractual/commercial terms include price, shipping cost, payment method, payment terms, date, period and mode of delivery, warranty related to products and services and after sale services related to sales and services. Flipkart does not have any control or does not determine or advise or in any way involved in the offering or accepting of such contractual, commercial terms between the buyer and seller.

Observations: Upon perusal of the facts and contentions, the Commission considered that whether there existed a deficiency in service and the extent of such deficiency.

The Commission perused the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defining “deficiency”, “unfair trade practice” and the relevant provision of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

It was observed that Unfair Contract means a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider, having such terms which causes a significant change in the rights of such consumer, thereby imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage. The Bench pointed out that the Opposite Parties are the agents who sell the product, and are duty bound to ensure its quality and if the product is found defective, agent shall be vicariously liable for the loss caused to the purchaser, along with the manufacturer of the product.

The Commission pointed out that Opposite Parties are in contract and agreement with the manufacturer who are service providers through the e-commerce entity and are bound by the contract between the manufacturer, product seller and the consumer and therefore must provide the information and details about the product to the sellers offering goods.

Decision: With the afore-stated observations, the Commission held that the Opposite Parties have not performed their duties of sellers on market-place as laid down in the Consumer Protection E-Commerce Rules, 2020.

The complaint was allowed partly, and the Opposite Parties were directed jointly and severally to return the additional extra charge of Rs. 140 and to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000 towards compensation and Rs. 3,000 towards costs, to the complainant.

[Shaikh Umar Farooq v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 519, decided on 26-07-2022]


Advocate who appeared in this case :

A. Narendar Rao, Advocate, for the Opposite Party No. 1,


*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has prepared this brief.

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: In a case relating to the unauthorized printing/binding/manufacturing/storing/advertising for sale and selling of counterfeit books published by Eastern Book Company, Police has told the Court that FIR under Ss. 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has been registered against Amazon, Flipkart and Mackhingee Publisher after receiving a complaint from EBC.

Siddharth Malik, J. has earlier directed the SHO of Darya Ganj Police Station to file an action report taken before 02.09.2022, and to state whether any complaint has been made by the complainant in the police station and any action has been taken on the complaint. Further, it also directed to state that, as a result of investigation any cognizable offence has been made out against the accused person and if yes, whether any FIR have been registered. Moreover, it was directed to provide the status of investigation.

Background of the case:

The complainants, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd and its sister concern Eastern Book Companyown copyright in many renowned textbooks, and publish books authored by reputed and notable luminaries in the field of law and distribute books through its own branches in major cities. Moreover, it has a large e-commerce presence through its website, namely EBC Webstore, through which customers can place orders and can purchase books. The complainants were made aware of the fact that a few of their published books were being sold without their knowledge or permission on Amazon and Flipkart by the accused, Mackhingee Publisher, who had been illegally selling inferior quality counterfeit books for a lesser price. The complainants also included Amazon Ltd. & Flipkart Private Limited in their complaint since they are providing a platform for the accused to commit such offences.

Details of the status report:

In the status report it was submitted that a complaint was received from the complainants at DIU/Central, Darya Ganj regarding the counterfeit book sold by Mackhingee Publishers, wherein the complainants have stated that they have the exclusive right to publish the textbooks concerned and the alleged infringers have no right to either distribute or publish these textbooks. In this regard it was submitted by the Police authorities that a case vide FIR No. 310/2022 under Ss. 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 has been registered and the investigation is pending.

[EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Mackhingee Publishers, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 34,  order dated 02.09.2022]


Order by: Siddhartha Malik, CMM (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi;

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Complainant: Advocate Sanjay Vashishtha.


Also Read:

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/07/30/eastern-book-company-sues-amazon-flipkart-for-selling-counterfeit-unauthorized-copies-of-its-books-delhi-court-directs-police-to-file-an-action-taken-report/

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: In a case where FIR was registered by Managing Director of Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd. (‘respondent’) against Flipkart (‘petitioner’) for allegedly selling fake products of DC Dermacol cosmetics, Asha Menon J. quashed the FIR stating that this is one such case where the registration of an FIR against an intermediary would lead to miscarriage of justice considering the basic ingredients being met to avail protection under Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

Flipkart is an e-commerce entity that provides its portal for the sale of products to other sellers. Respondent 2, being MD of Sanash Impex Pvt. Ltd. has been authorized with absolute and exclusive right to sell DC DERMACOL cosmetic products in India, both online and offline. DC DERMACOL is a product of an international brand (Czech Brand) and gained high repute as a brand all over the world in respect of skin makeup.

The allegations are such that it is in connivance with the fake/unauthorized re-sellers. Thus, the respondent 2, on behalf of its company, accused the petitioner of cheating and illegal selling of DC DERMACOL cosmetics products. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered for the commission of offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trademark Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Thus, instant petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing of the said FIR.

Counsel for Petitioner Mr. Siddharth Luthra submitted that the petitioner was an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1) (w) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and was thus protected under Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000. It was further submitted that until and unless a court order was served upon the petitioner, there was no obligation on the petitioner, as an intermediary, to remove any material from its portal. It was submitted that in the present case, respondent 2 has not initiated any civil proceedings and no court order had been served upon the petitioner. As such, the FIR against the petitioner was mis-placed and mala fide.

“Intermediary” is defined under Section 2(1)(w) Information Technology Act, 2000 as follows:

Section 2(1)(w) —intermediary, with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes.

Placing reliance on Google India Private Limited v. Visaka Industries, (2020) 4 SCC 162, the Court noted that the e-market portals, like the petitioner, are intermediaries.

The Court further noted that IT Act does not provide for infringement of trademark or copyright as an offence thereunder and the only obligation of an intermediary is provided under Section 79 of IT Act which incidentally falls under Chapter XII under the title —Intermediaries Not to Be Liable in Certain Cases.

It was stated that the obligation of the intermediary is to observe due diligence and follow the guidelines that may be prescribed by the Government in this regard. Therefore, reference will have to be made to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (‘IT Guidelines’). Rule 3(1) of IT Guidelines provides for due diligence to be observed by the intermediary, however, the non-compliance of these Guidelines/Rules have not been declared to be an “offence” under the IT Act.

The Court remarked the present matter relates to criminal liability. The simple question is whether compliance with the “due diligence” requirement under Rule 3 of IT Guidelines would render the intermediary eligible for exemption from criminal liability also.

The Court opined that the standard for fixing criminal liability is far higher than that under civil law, one requiring proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and not just a ‘balance of probabilities. Thus, unless an active role is disclosed in the commission of the offences complained of, the intermediary, such as the present petitioner, would be entitled to claim protection under Section 79 of the IT Act. Thus, when compliance with the “due diligence” requirement under Rule 3 of IT Guidelines is evident, ex facie, the exclusion of liability under Section 79 of IT Act would include exclusion from criminal prosecution.

The Court observed that the petitioner has complied with the Guidelines by putting it on their Terms of Use, that the users cannot display what belongs to another person and over which they have no right or which infringes upon or violates any third party’s rights, including but not limited to intellectual property rights, rights of privacy or rights of publicity; or promotes an illegal or unauthorized copy of another person’s copyrighted work or infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, proprietary rights, third-party’s trade secrets, rights of publicity or privacy, or is fraudulent or involves the sale of counterfeit or stolen items or which violates any law for the time being in force. Thus, due diligence under Rule 3 of IT Guidelines has been complied with.

The Court also considered a moot question whether the information provided by the complainant would suffice to obligate the petitioner to take down the allegedly offending information/sites/products. It noted that the intermediaries are certainly not situated to determine the correctness of a claim by a complainant to a trademark or copyright.

The court remarked that the present case goes a step ahead as the FIR has been lodged only against the petitioner and another platform, as none of the other sites or entities, allegedly selling the products which are either fake or unauthorized, are even named.

Thus, placing reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court quashed the FIR qua the petitioner holding that this is one such case where the registration of an FIR against an intermediary would lead to miscarriage of justice not barring investigations in order to ascertain the identity of those who are infringers and/or unauthorized sellers of the products of the Czech company.

[Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2439, decided on 17-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioners- Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Mr. Manish K. Jha, Ms. Shruti Dass and Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Advocates;

For Respondents- Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for R-1/ State with Mr. Anshum Jain and Mr. Rahul Kochar, Advocates and Insp. B.M. Bahuguna Mr. Vivek Raja, Advocate for R-2.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Flipkart (‘defendant’) was sued by V Traditions (‘plaintiff’) for infringing its mark by allowing third party sellers to latch on to the plaintiff product listings featured as best sellers, Prathiba M Singh J. restrains Flipkart from allowing any third-party sellers from ‘latching on’ to the mark ‘V Tradition’ used by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s product listings under the mark/name ‘V Tradition’, so as to ensure that third-party unauthorized sellers are unable to misuse the name and product listings of the Plaintiff.

The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking various reliefs including permanent and mandatory injunction restraining trademark infringement and passing off etc against Defendant 1- Flipkart Internet Private Limited and various John Doe sellers. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff for the protection of its rights in the mark ‘V Tradition’ used in relation to clothing for women. It is the case of the Plaintiff that various sellers have unlawfully latched on to the product listings created by the Plaintiff on Flipkart platform as ‘more sellers’ of Plaintiff’s products.

What is ‘Latching of’?

The Court noted that in the present case whenever a seller wishes to place some listings in a specific product category, a recommendation on the basis of the business conducted on its portal is given as to which are the ‘Best Seller’ products. The caption “Grow your business by 3x” along with specific data, is also projected in order to entice the new seller to ‘latch on’ to popular product listings. The said seller is then permitted to ADD the LISTING to his listing page. While giving this recommendation, the mark ‘V Tradition’, as also, the product photographs of the Plaintiff is permitted to be added by the third-party seller, without the permission or consent of the Plaintiff. It is, thus, clear that product listings of the Plaintiff are being permitted to be used along with the Plaintiff’s brand name and image/s of the product created by the Plaintiff. The said brand name and photograph then becomes a part of the product listings of the third-party unauthorized seller who can then make similar looking products and sell them as though they originate from ‘V Tradition’.

The Court observed by documents placed on record that the Flipkart platform is permitting other third-party sellers to ‘latch on’ to the best sellers in one particular segment of products, resulting in various third-party sellers misusing the Plaintiff’s Brand/mark. Such a feature cannot be allowed to be used or offered, to the detriment of the owner of the brand or the person who has created the original product. Consent and authorization of the brand owner and the listing owner would be required before such conduct by any seller is permitted, the Court held the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction against Flipkart. In the opinion of this Court, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an interim injunction is not granted.

Thus, the Court noted that permitting a third-party seller to ‘latch on’, in this manner, to the Plaintiff’s name/mark and product listings is nothing but `riding piggyback’ as is known in the traditional passing-off sense. It amounts to taking unfair advantage of the goodwill that resides in the Plaintiff’s mark and business.

The Court restrained Flipkart from allowing any third-party sellers from ‘latching on’ to the mark ‘V Tradition’ used by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s product listings under the mark/name ‘V Tradition’, so as to ensure that third-party unauthorized sellers are unable to misuse the name and product listings of the Plaintiff.

 

The Court further directed Flipkart to ensure that the ‘latching on’ feature is disabled qua the mark ‘V Tradition’ used by the Plaintiff till the next date of hearing. The Court passed restrain orders against all such third-party sellers from ‘latching on’ to the product listings of the Plaintiff and misusing the product listings and mark/name ‘V Tradition’, for promoting their products which are not connected to the Plaintiff, in any manner.

 

It was further directed to the counsel of Flipkart to supply a list of URLs and any other available details of all such infringing third-party product listings within two days. Upon receipt of the same, all the said product listings shall be disabled or taken down, within 48 hours along with a list having contact details, of all the third-party sellers, who have availed themselves of the ‘latching on’ feature in respect of the Plaintiff’s mark/name ‘V Tradition’ and products sold under the said mark, to the Counsel for the Plaintiff.

[Akash Agarwal v Flipkart Internet Private Limited, CS (COMM) 492 of 2022, decided on 02-08-2022]


Advocates before Court-

For Plaintiff: Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay and Mr. Naseem Prashant, Advocates.

For Defendant: Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Manjra, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ms. Surabhi Pande and Mr. Kuber, Advocates


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: In a case relating to the unauthorized printing/binding/manufacturing/storing/advertising for sale and selling of counterfeit books published by EBC, Siddharth Malik, J. has directed SHO to provide an action taken report before the next date of hearing.

Background of the case:

The Complainants, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and its sister Firm Eastern Book Company, are companies engaged in the business of publishing legal commentaries, law reports, digests, student texts, etc under their registered trademark. The complainants were made aware of the fact that a few of their published books were being sold without their knowledge or permission on Amazon and Flipkart by the accused, Mackhingee Publisher.

The complainants bought some books from the accused and realized that the accused had been illegally selling inferior quality counterfeit books for a lesser price, and the complainant was receiving negative online reviews for the same. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the accused for illegally selling counterfeit books online. The complainant also included Amazon Ltd. & Flipkart Private Limited in its complaint since they are providing a platform to the accused to commit such offences. In fact, their policy frameworks are designed to safeguard the sale of counterfeit products and there appears to be a deliberate overlook on the sale of such illegal books/items.

Directions:

The Court has directed the SHO of Darya Ganj Police Station to file an action taken report, before the next date of hearing, stating the following:

1. Whether any complaint has been made/ received by the complainant in the police station.

2. If yes, whether any action has been taken on the complaint.

3. Whether as a result of investigation/ inquiry, any cognizable offence has been made out against the accused person and whether any action has been taken by the police.

4. If yes, whether any FIR has been registered & status of investigation.

5. If no cognizable offence has been made out, whether the complainant has been informed accordingly.

The next hearing will take place on 02-09-2022.

[EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Mackhingee Publishers, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 29, decided on July 28, 2022]


Order by :

Siddhartha Malik, CMM (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

Counsel(s):

Complainant: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: In an interesting case Ziyad Rahman A.A., J., directed the District Police Chief to take action against the e-commerce company, Flipkart for delivering wrong product.

The petitioner had ordered a laptop with specification of “Acer Aspire 7 Core i5, 9th Gen (8GB/512 GB SSD/Windows)” for a total consideration of Rs.53,890 through an e-commerce entity named Flipkart, operated by Filpkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. However, the product received by him was a totally different one.

The grievance of the petitioner was that though he had submitted a complaint before the Station House Officer (SHO), Kaduthuruthy Police Station, no action was taken with regard to his complaint. Aggrieved by the inaction of the SHO, the petitioner approached the District Police Chief with his grievances.

In the instant petition, the petitioner had sought consideration of the said complaint by the District Police Chief.

Considering the arguments advanced by the petitioner, the Court directed the District Police Chief to take up the complaint and issue proper direction to the officers concerned to redress the grievance of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The Court added that an appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of one month.

[Aby Thomas v. Director General of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 3732, decided on 23-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Arun Mathew Vadakkan and Don Paul, Advocates, for the Petitioner;

Public Prosecutor Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, for the Respondent.


*Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

NGT
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Green Tribunal (NGT): Full Bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel (Chairperson) and Justice S.P. Wangdi (Judicial Member)and Dr Nagin Nanda (Expert Member) asked CPCB to consider an environmental audit of certain entities.

Present applications sought enforcement of ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.

The first petition sought enforcement of liability against Amazon and Flipkart using excessive plastic packaging material without meeting the statutory liability.

On earlier occasions, the matter was considered wherein it was observed that the statutory regulators were not taking coercive measures including invoking of “Polluter Pays Principle” for enforcing the statutory norms.

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was directed to look into the matter and file a further report.

CPCB in its report mentioned reasons of why the law was not enforced but does not mention the coercive measures adopted either directly by CPCB or in coordination with State PCBs/PCCs.

Further, the tribunal stated that CPCB can also consider ordering an environmental audit against the entities concerned and assess and recover compensation for violation of environmental norms.

Matter to be considered on 14-10-2020. [Aditya Dubey (Minor) v. Amazon Retail India (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine NGT 228, decided on 10-09-2020]

Business NewsNews

As per media reports, Flipkart has shut down the operations of Jabong and the users will now be redirected towards the Myntra website and app.

For about 4 years ago Flipkart had bought Jabong.

Flipkart that acquired Myntra in 2014 and Jabong in 2016 controls around 70% of the market.

Now the full concentration of e-commerce platform Flipkart will be on Myntra and long term strategies will be formed and significant market expenditure will be spent on Myntra, rather being divide ito two.


[Source: Media Reports]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Company Appellate Tribunal: A Bench of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice A.I.S Cheema, Member (Judicial) and Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) admitted the appeal filed by the All India Online Vendors Association (“AIOVA”) against the order of the Competition Commission of India, dated 6-11-2018, whereby it held that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 (abuse of dominant position) of the Competition Act, 2002 was made out against Flipkart and Amazon.

AIOVA’s case

AIOVA — company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 — is a group of more than 2000 sellers, selling on e-commerce marketplaces such as Flipkart, Amazon, Snapdeal, etc. It informed the CCI regarding abuse of dominant position by Flipkart alleging that small vendors have become allies of the big vendors and suppliers to leading sellers such as Cloudtail., WS Retail, etc. on the Flipkart and Amazon platforms, rather than selling directly to consumers through the online e-commerce marketplace sites. Further, it was apprehended that unfair trade practices were being carried and corporate veil on it was required to be lifted to assess the economic nexus and the wrongdoings being committed.

CCI’s Order

The Commission vide its order dated 6-11-2018, found no contravention of the provisions of Section 4 by Flipkart. Holding that the relevant market in the instant case may be defined as “services provided by online marketplace platforms for selling goods in India”, the Commission further held that “looking at the present market construct and structure of online marketplace platforms market in India, it does not appear that any one player in the market is commanding any dominant position at this stage of evolution of market.”

Finding that Flipkart was not a dominant player in the “relevant market”, it was held that the question of abuse of dominant position did not arise. Furthermore, it was held that the information provided by AIOVA was not sufficient to substantiate the allegations against Flipkart. Though the information was filed against Flipkart, the Commission held a conference with Amazon as well as it is also a key player in the relevant market. On the same reasoning, the Commission held that no contravention of the provisions of Section 4 could be said to be made out against either Flipkart or Amazon.

Appeal before NCLAT

Aggrieved by the decision passed by the CCI, filed a company appeal before the NCLAT challenging the same. Chanakya Basa along with Nidhi Khanna, Advocates, appearing for AIOVA argued on the errors in the impugned order. Per contra, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal is representing the opposite party along with Rajshekhar Rao, Yaman Verma, Sonali Charak and Neetu Ahlawat, Advocates.

The Appellate Tribunal has admitted the appeal for hearing. The respondents have been given 10-days time to file an affidavit in reply. The appeal is further posted for hearing on 30-07-2019.[All India Online Vendors Assn. v. CCI, Company Appeal (AT) No. 16 of 2019, decided on 15-05-2019]