SC tells tech giant, Google, to deposit 10% penalty amount

Android has benefited Indian users, developers, and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), according to tech giant Google, who also noted that Android has been crucial to India's digital transformation. Google further stated that it would work with the Indian Competition Commission (CCI).

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgement of January 4, 2023 was the subject of Google's appeal, which the Supreme Court declined to hear.

A Google representative stated that the company is reviewing the specifics of yesterday's decision, which only addressed temporary relief and did not address the merits of Google's appeal. Indian users, developers, and OEMs have benefited significantly from Android, and it has been crucial to India's digital revolution.

The statement added that the IT behemoth will work with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to determine the best course of action. The representative said that, in addition to their appeal, they are still committed to their users and business partners and would work with the CCI to find a solution.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court declined to hear Google's appeal of the NCLAT verdict and instructed the company to appeal to the tribunal for a decision on the Rs 1,337 crore penalty within three working days. In its ruling on January 4, the NCLAT declined to give a temporary injunction against the Competition Commission of India (CCI) judgement and demanded that Google deposit 10% of the fine.

In order to punish Google for abusing its dominating position in the Indian market for Android smartphone operating systems, the CCI fined the company more than Rs 1,337 crore. Google said that CCI's decision was a copy of one made by the European Commission.

The CCI, according to Google, copied substantially from a European Commission decision, utilising information from Europe that was not reviewed in India, in its legal submissions. N Venkataraman, counsel for CCI, had argued before the supreme court that the decision made by the competition authority was original.