Madras High Court Dismisses Google's Plea To Reject Plaint By Testbook Edu Solutions Against New Play Store Billing Policy

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that Testbook's plaint was different from the earlier plaints filed by other startups on the same issue, which were rejected by the High Court. The court noted that the arguments raised by Testbook were not just related to the superior bargaining position of Google but also with respect to the bilateral contracts between the parties.

The court thus noted that such in personam disputes could not be adjudicated by the Competition Commission of India, which was empowered only to examine whether an enterprise had abused its dominant position and not whether the contract was violative.

“In view of the nature of jurisdiction exercised by a civil court, in contrast to the in rem proceedings before the CCI, in the present suit, the plaintiff has only requested for relief in relation to the specific bilateral contract(s) between the parties to the suit. Such in personam disputes cannot be adjudicated by the CCI, which is statutorily empowered to examine whether an enterprise has abused its dominant position in the relevant market and not whether one party to a contract is in a dominant position vis-a-vis the counter party and whether, in that context, the relevant contract was entered into without the free consent of the aggrieved counter party or is otherwise in violation of public policy because it is unconscionable on account of the abuse of the unfair bargaining power. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the present suit is not barred by Section 61 of the Competition Act,” the court said.

In 2023, a single judge had dismissed 14 petitions by Indian startups challenging the new user choice billing system by Google. The single judge had observed that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India and that the remedy available under the Competition Act is much more comprehensive than that available before a civil court. Though appeal was preferred, the division bench dismissed the appeals and agreed with the finding of the single judge.

While seeking to reject Testbook's plaint, Google argued that the plaint was identical to the earlier set of litigations. The court was informed that though a special leave petition had been filed by the startups, the same was pending and the Supreme Court had not stayed the order yet.

Google contended that apart from certain cosmetic changes, the pleadings in the present suit were substantially similar to those made in the previous suits. It was also argued that a challenge to Google's service fee (10%-30%) had already been raised before the CCI, which did not impose an embargo on charging the fee.

Testbook opposed rejection and submitted that in the previous round of litigations, the court had held that CCI was empowered to deal with abuse of dominant position, not contractual issues. Testbook contended that it had raised the question of waiver, which had not been raised previously. It was submitted that since Google had not charged a service fee for several years, there was an implied waiver and it could not claim such charges. Testbook also added that only a civil court could consider the issue of waiver, and thus urged the court not to reject the suit.

The court noted that as per Order VII Rule 11, a plaint could be rejected either when it did not disclose a cause of action or when it was barred by any law.

The court noted that the reliefs sought for by Testbook were with respect to the bilateral agreement between the parties, which could not have been adjudicated by the CCI. The court also noted that the Payment and Settlement Systems Act also did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction by a civil court.

The court also observed that while deciding if a plaint disclosed a cause of action, it was not necessary to establish all elements of cause of action and it was sufficient to establish that the plaint disclosed a cause of action.

Thus, concluding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the court was not barred from exercising jurisdiction, the court dismissed the application to reject the suit.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Advocate, Mr.Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate for for M/s.G.Balasubramanian, S.Anand for M/s.Leela & Co.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Abir Roy, Mr.Devashish Marwah, Mr.Aman Shankar, Mr.Sastribata Panda, Ms.Ridhhima Sharma

Case Title: Google India Pvt Ltd and Another v. Testbook Edu Solutions Private Limited and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200

Case No: A. No.4193 of 2023 in C.S.(Comm Div) No.186 of 2023