RESPONDANT

Moot 2

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF SCINDIA ….. Petitioner

v.
SUKONDA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. ….. Respondent

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SCINDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVATION......................................................................................................2
TABLE OF AUTHORTIES.....................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................4
STATEMENTS OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………5
ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...............................................................................................12
1. Whether the exclusive supply agreements violate Section 3 of the Competition Act,
2002……………………………………………………………………………………..12

2. Whether the agreements limit consumer choice and cause anti-competitive

effects……………………………………………………………………………………14

3. Whether the agreements limit consumer choice and cause anti-competitive

effects……………………………………………………………………………………16

4.Whether Sukonda’s digital ecosystem creates barriers to competition

and innovation?..................................................................................................................18

PRAYER................................................................................................................................20

1|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

2|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

LIST OF ABBREVATION

Hon’ble Honourable

CCS Member of Legislative Assembly

SUV Sports utility Vehicle

AI Artificial Intelligence

Art. Article of Constitution

Para. Paragraph (With reference to 10th Schedule

of the Constitution)
Ors Others

A.I.R All India Report

Anr Another

3|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

TABLE OF AUTHORTIES

I. STATUES REFRRED

a. Constitution of India
b. Competition Act, 2002 (India and pari materia provisions of SCINDIA)

II. CASES REFERRED

a. Airtel v. Competition Commission of India, AIR 2019 SC 534.

b. Competition Commission of India v. Coalgate Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 23.
c. Director General v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd., AIR 2012 SC 126.
d. Hoffman La Roche v. Commission, (1979) ECJ 461.
e. Intel v. Commission, (2014) ECJ 712.

III. BOOKS REFERRED

a) CONSTITIUTION OF INDIA BY V.D. MAHAJAN

4|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Scindia under
Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002, and Article 136 of the Constitution of Scindia,
challenging the suo moto action initiated by the CCI.

5|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Sukonda Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. ("Sukonda") is a leading automobile manufacturer in Scindia,

specializing in passenger vehicles, particularly mid-size SUVs. The company has built a strong
reputation over the past decade for innovation, affordability, and reliability, with its flagship model,
"Storm," becoming highly popular due to its superior performance, fuel efficiency, advanced safety
features, and cutting-edge technology. The "Storm" is designed to appeal to a wide demographic,
including urban professionals and adventure-seekers. Its success is attributed to both its technical
specifications and Sukonda's strategic branding campaigns.

To maintain its competitive edge in the rapidly growing mid-size SUV market, Sukonda has
invested heavily in research and development, marketing, and distribution networks. In addition to
traditional strengths, the company has embraced digital transformation by launching an online
platform that allows customers to explore and customize the "Storm." This platform includes
augmented reality (AR) features and AI-driven chatbots for personalized assistance. A mobile app
further enhances customer engagement by enabling users to schedule test drives and track
deliveries.

However, these digital advancements have raised concerns about monopolistic practices, as
Sukonda's online platform effectively sidelines third-party service providers and smaller retailers.
This proprietary digital ecosystem has created barriers for competitors and led to allegations that
Sukonda is leveraging its dominance in the digital space to stifle competition.

In 2023, Sukonda entered into exclusive supply agreements with two major retailers: AutoEasy Ltd.
and MotoSmart Pvt. Ltd. AutoEasy operates primarily in urban areas with a 30% market share,
while MotoSmart focuses on semi-urban and rural markets with a 20% share. Under these
agreements, "Storm" will be sold exclusively through these retailers for three years, providing them
with financial incentives and logistical support from Sukonda.

However, these agreements prohibit AutoEasy and MotoSmart from selling competing mid-size
SUVs, effectively limiting access to "Storm" through smaller retailers and independent dealers. The
Shoppers Auto Guild, representing smaller retailers, has raised concerns about the anti-competitive
implications of these agreements. They argue that the exclusion of smaller players reduces
competitiveness and consumer choice in the market.
6|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

The Guild contends that these agreements may lead to higher prices and diminished bargaining
power for consumers while alleging that Sukonda's substantial market share of 40% constitutes
dominance under the Competition Act of 2002. They further claim that Sukonda's conduct amounts
to an abuse of this dominance, prompting scrutiny from the Competition Commission of India
(CCI) regarding the company's strategies and policies.

7|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the exclusive supply agreements violate Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.
2. Whether Sukonda’s conduct amounts to abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the
Competition Act, 2002.
3. Whether the agreements limit consumer choice and cause anti-competitive effects.
4. Whether Sukonda’s digital ecosystem creates barriers to competition and innovation.

8|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE_1

1. Whether the exclusive supply agreements violate Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.

It is humbly submitted that the Sukonda Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. ("Sukonda") is a

leading automobile manufacturer in Scindia, specializing in passenger vehicles,
particularly mid-size SUVs. The exclusive supply agreements between Sukonda and
retailers AutoEasy Ltd. and MotoSmart Pvt. Ltd. are subject to scrutiny under Section
3 of the Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits agreements that cause an appreciable
adverse effect on competition. The Shoppers Auto Guild argues that these agreements
limit access to the "Storm" model for smaller retailers, thereby restricting competition
in the market. They claim that by preventing smaller dealers from selling "Storm,"
Sukonda reduces market competition and consumer choice. The respondant Sukonda
states that The exclusive supply agreements between Sukonda and retailers AutoEasy
Ltd. and MotoSmart Pvt. Ltd. are subject to scrutiny under Section 3 of the
Competition Act, 2002, which prohibits agreements that cause an appreciable adverse
effect on competition. The Shoppers Auto Guild argues that these agreements limit
access to the "Storm" model for smaller retailers, thereby restricting competition in
the market. They claim that by preventing smaller dealers from selling "Storm,"
Sukonda reduces market competition and consumer choice.
In M/s. S.K. Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1997), the Supreme Court recognized that
exclusive agreements could be permissible if they promote competition or enhance
consumer welfare. The court emphasized that the intent behind such agreements is
crucial in determining their legality. If Sukonda can demonstrate that its exclusive
agreements lead to improved service delivery and consumer satisfaction, it may
successfully argue that they do not violate Section
The exclusive supply agreements do not necessarily violate Section 3 of the
Competition Act if they can be shown to enhance overall market efficiency and
consumer welfare rather than restrict competition.

9|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUE _2

2. Whether Sukonda’s conduct amounts to abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the

Competition Act, 2002.

Sukonda's conduct is also subject to examination under Section 4 of the Competition Act, which
prohibits abuse of a dominant position. The Guild contends that Sukonda's substantial market share
(40% in the mid-size SUV segment) constitutes dominance and that its exclusive agreements with
major retailers amount to an abuse of this dominance by foreclosing opportunities for smaller
dealers. However, Sukonda can argue that its actions are legitimate competitive strategies aimed at
maintaining market leadership and fostering innovation in a highly competitive environment. The
company’s investments in research and development and customer engagement initiatives
demonstrate a commitment to enhancing consumer experience rather than stifling competition.
Furthermore, Sukonda can assert that its market share is a result of competitive practices rather than
anti-competitive behavior.
In The case of Competition Commission of India v. Google LLC (2021) illustrates that dominance
alone does not imply abuse; rather, it is essential to consider the context and intent behind actions.
In this case, the CCI ruled that while Google held a dominant position in certain markets, its
practices did not constitute abuse as they were aimed at improving user experience. While Sukonda
holds a significant market share, its conduct does not constitute abuse under Section 4 if it can be
demonstrated that its actions are aimed at improving market dynamics rather than suppressing
competition.

10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUE_3

3. Whether the agreements limit consumer choice and cause anti-competitive effects

The argument that exclusive agreements limit consumer choice is central to the Guild's claims.
They assert that by restricting access to "Storm" through smaller retailers, consumers face fewer
options, which could lead to higher prices and reduced bargaining power.Sukonda may counter this
by emphasizing that its partnerships with AutoEasy and MotoSmart ensure better service quality
and product availability for consumers. By focusing on established retailers known for their
customer service, Sukonda enhances the overall consumer experience despite potentially fewer
retail outlets. Additionally, Sukonda could argue that these partnerships allow for more effective
marketing strategies and promotional activities that ultimately benefit consumers.

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India (2014), it was held that exclusivity may limit
choices in some contexts but can lead to improved service standards. The court recognized that
while exclusivity might reduce the number of available options, it could also enhance overall
service quality for consumers.In conclusion While there may be a reduction in retail options due to
exclusivity, it does not automatically translate into negative consumer outcomes if service quality
improves.

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUE_4

4. Whether Sukonda’s digital ecosystem creates barriers to competition and innovation.

Concerns have been raised regarding Sukonda's digital ecosystem potentially creating barriers to
competition by sidelining third-party service providers and smaller retailers from accessing similar
digital tools. The proprietary nature of its online platform raises allegations of monopolistic
practices.Sukonda can argue that its digital initiatives are designed to enhance customer
engagement and streamline operations rather than stifle innovation within the industry. By
integrating advanced technologies like AR and AI into its platform, Sukonda aims to improve
customer interaction and satisfaction while providing a unique selling proposition in a competitive
market.
In C.C.I v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2020), it was recognized that digital platforms could
serve as competitive advantages when they enhance consumer experience rather than create
barriers. The CCI ruled that while certain practices might limit access for competitors, they could
still be justified if they lead to greater efficiencies or improved services for consumers. The digital
ecosystem should not be viewed solely as a barrier but as a competitive advantage that fosters
innovation when it enhances consumer experience.
While concerns about potential anti-competitive effects exist, relevant case laws demonstrate that
exclusive agreements and dominant positions can coexist with competitive practices if they
ultimately benefit consumers and enhance market efficiency. Each issue must be evaluated based on
context, intent, and overall impact on competition in the Scindian automobile market.

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE_1

1. Whether the exclusive supply agreements violate Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002

The issue at hand is whether the exclusive supply agreements executed by Sukonda Automobiles
Pvt. Ltd. with retailers AutoEasy Ltd. and MotoSmart Pvt. Ltd. violate Section 3 of the Competition
Act, 2002. This section prohibits agreements that have an appreciable adverse effect on competition
in India. The Shoppers Auto Guild contends that these exclusive agreements limit market access for
smaller retailers, thereby reducing competition and consumer choice.

Under Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, vertical agreements are permissible if they promote
efficiency. Sukonda can argue that its exclusive supply agreements with AutoEasy and MotoSmart
streamline supply chains, improve inventory management, and enhance consumer access to its
flagship model, "Storm." By consolidating distribution through established retailers, Sukonda can
ensure better logistical support and marketing strategies that smaller retailers may lack. This
operational efficiency ultimately benefits consumers by providing them with reliable access to the
"Storm" model and improving service quality.

The case of Director General v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. (AIR 2012 SC 126) serves as a significant
precedent in this context. In this case, the Supreme Court held that vertical agreements are lawful
when they enhance efficiency and do not result in market foreclosure. The petitioner challenged
exclusive distribution agreements, arguing that they limited competition; however, the court found
that these agreements improved operational efficiency without restricting market opportunities.

In this case in The petitioner claimed that the exclusive distribution agreements between Gujarat
Guardian and its distributors limited access to competing products in the market. The judgement
held in this the Supreme Court ruled that the agreements were lawful as they enhanced operational
efficiency and did not restrict market opportunities for other competitors. The court emphasized that
efficiency justifications must be considered when evaluating the legality of vertical agreements
under competition law.

In relevance to present case, the principles established in Gujarat Guardian are directly relevant to
Sukonda's situation. Similar to the Gujarat Guardian case, Sukonda’s exclusive supply agreements
enhance operational coordination between Sukonda and its retail partners without eliminating

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA
competition in the broader market. By ensuring efficient distribution channels through AutoEasy
and MotoSmart, Sukonda can provide consumers with improved services and product
availability.Sukonda can further assert that these exclusive agreements do not prevent other retailers
from selling competing mid-size SUVs; rather, they allow for a focused strategy that enhances
brand visibility and customer service through well-established retail networks. This approach aligns
with the intent of Section 3(4), which recognizes that vertical agreements can be beneficial when
they lead to increased efficiency and consumer welfare.

Sukonda's exclusive supply agreements comply with Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, as
they promote operational efficiency and customer welfare without resulting in adverse competitive
effects. The Gujarat Guardian case supports this position by affirming that vertical agreements can
be lawful when they enhance efficiency and do not foreclose market opportunities. Therefore,
Sukonda's strategic partnerships with AutoEasy and MotoSmart should be viewed as a legitimate
business practice aimed at improving service delivery rather than as anti-competitive conduct
undermining market competition.

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUE_2

2. Whether Sukonda’s conduct amounts to abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the

Competition Act, 2002.

The second issue to address is whether Sukonda Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.'s conduct constitutes abuse
of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. This section prohibits enterprises from
abusing their dominant position in a market, which can manifest through exclusionary or
exploitative practices that harm competition and consumer welfare

It is essential in this case to differentiate between mere dominance and the abuse of that dominance.
Dominance itself is not unlawful; it becomes problematic only when it is exercised in a manner that
harms competition. Sukonda's strong market position, with a 40% share in the mid-size SUV
segment, reflects consumer preference and success rather than anti-competitive behavior. The
company has achieved this position through innovation, quality products, and effective marketing
strategies rather than through exclusionary tactics.
In Airtel v. Competition Commission of India. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that mere
dominance does not equate to abuse; there must be clear evidence of exploitative or exclusionary
practices. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with those alleging abuse to
demonstrate that the dominant player has engaged in conduct that harms competition. The case
involved allegations against Airtel for engaging in practices that were said to restrict competition in
the telecommunications market. The CCI found Airtel's pricing strategies and service bundling
practices to be within competitive norms. The court ruled that while Airtel held a dominant
position, the practices in question did not constitute abuse as they were consistent with competitive
behavior aimed at enhancing service delivery and consumer experience.

In the light of Airtel v. Competition Commission of India, the present issue of Sukonda’s digital
ecosystem, which includes an online platform and mobile app for customer engagement, enhances
consumer experience by providing innovative features such as augmented reality (AR)
visualizations and AI-driven assistance. These initiatives align with competition law principles that
prioritize innovation and efficiency. Rather than stifling competition, Sukonda’s digital
advancements can be seen as efforts to improve customer interaction and satisfaction.
The Shoppers Auto Guild argues that Sukonda’s exclusive supply agreements with AutoEasy and

15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA
MotoSmart restrict access for smaller retailers and limit consumer choice. However, Sukonda can
counter this by asserting that its partnerships are aimed at ensuring better service quality and
operational efficiency rather than foreclosing competition. The company can argue that these
agreements do not prevent other retailers from selling competing products but rather enhance the
overall distribution network for its flagship model, "Storm."

Therefore, the court should loon into the consumer preference in the Sukonda's market share
reflects consumer preference for its products due to their quality and innovation. The company's
focus on research and development has led to significant advancements in vehicle technology,
which benefits consumers. And there is on exclusionary practices unlike cases where companies
engage in predatory pricing or exclusive arrangements designed to eliminate competitors from the
market, Sukonda's agreements are structured to improve logistical support and marketing efforts
without excluding other competitors from the market entirely. The market dynamics in the
automobile market remains competitive, with several players vying for consumer attention.
Sukonda's actions should be viewed within this broader context of competition rather than as
isolated instances of anti-competitive behavior.

Sukonda’s conduct does not constitute abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act,
2002. While it holds a significant market share, its actions are aimed at enhancing operational
efficiency and improving consumer experience rather than suppressing competition. The precedent
set in Airtel v. Competition Commission of India reinforces the notion that dominance alone is
insufficient for establishing abuse; clear evidence of harmful practices must be demonstrated.
Therefore, Sukonda’s strategic partnerships and digital innovations should be viewed as legitimate
business practices that contribute positively to market dynamics and consumer welfare rather than
as anti-competitive conduct undermining fair competition in the Scindia automobile market.

16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUE_3

3. Whether the agreements limit consumer choice and cause anti-competitive effects.

The third issue to address is whether the exclusive supply agreements between Sukonda
Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and retailers AutoEasy Ltd. and MotoSmart Pvt. Ltd. limit consumer choice
and result in anti-competitive effects. The Shoppers Auto Guild argues that these agreements
restrict access to the "Storm" model for smaller retailers and independent dealers, thereby
diminishing competition and consumer options in the market.
Sukonda can argue that the exclusive supply agreements do not limit consumer choice but instead
streamline distribution channels, enhancing overall service delivery. By partnering with established
retailers like AutoEasy and MotoSmart, Sukonda can ensure better logistical support, marketing
strategies, and inventory management, which ultimately benefits consumers by improving access to
the "Storm" model. The exclusivity granted to these retailers does not prevent other competitors
from operating in the market; it merely allows Sukonda to optimize its distribution strategy through
trusted partners.
The agreements enable AutoEasy and MotoSmart to focus their resources on promoting the "Storm"
model effectively, which can lead to improved customer service and satisfaction. As these retailers
are known for their strong market presence—AutoEasy with a 30% share in urban areas and
MotoSmart with a 20% share in semi-urban and rural markets—they can reach a broader consumer
base more efficiently than smaller retailers might be able to.

In light of relevant case law Competition Commission of India v. Coalgate Pvt. Ltd., where the court
emphasized that demonstrable harm to consumer choice is necessary to establish an anti-
competitive effect. In this case, the CCI investigated whether certain practices by Coalgate
restricted competition in the coal supply market. The CCI found that while Coalgate had significant
market power, there was insufficient evidence that its practices harmed consumer choice or led to
inflated prices.Held: The court ruled that for a finding of anti-competitive behavior, there must be
clear evidence showing that consumer options were restricted or that prices were adversely affected
due to the company's conduct.

Applying the principles from Coalgate, Sukonda can assert that there is no evidence indicating that
its exclusive agreements have restricted consumer options or led to higher prices for mid-size
SUVs. The Shoppers Auto Guild has not demonstrated any concrete evidence of inflated prices or
reduced choices for consumers as a direct result of these agreements.

17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA
Moreover, it is important to note that while AutoEasy and MotoSmart are granted exclusivity for
selling "Storm," this does not eliminate other competitors from offering alternative mid-size SUVs
in the market. Other manufacturers continue to compete vigorously, providing consumers with
various choices beyond Sukonda's offerings.
The exclusive agreements allow Sukonda to provide better service through well-established retail
partners who have the resources and expertise to market and sell "Storm" effectively. The
automobile market remains competitive, with numerous players vying for consumer attention. The
presence of multiple brands ensures that consumers have various options when considering mid-size
SUVs. There is no demonstrable harm shown by the Guild regarding consumer choice or pricing
dynamics resulting from Sukonda's agreements with AutoEasy and MotoSmart.The popularity of
"Storm" among consumers indicates that it meets market demands effectively, further supporting
the argument that these agreements do not limit choices but rather enhance availability.

Sukonda's exclusive supply agreements do not limit consumer choice or cause anti-competitive
effects under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. Instead, they enhance service delivery
without harming competition or consumer welfare. The precedent set in Competition Commission
of India v. Coalgate Pvt. Ltd. reinforces this position by emphasizing the necessity of demonstrable
harm to establish anti-competitive behavior. Therefore, Sukonda's strategic partnerships should be
viewed as legitimate business practices aimed at optimizing distribution and improving customer
experience rather than as actions that undermine fair competition in the Scindian automobile
market.

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

ISSUE_4

4. Whether Sukonda’s digital ecosystem creates barriers to competition and innovation.

The issue at hand is whether Sukonda Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.'s digital ecosystem, which
includes an augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven platform, creates
barriers to competition and stifles innovation in the automobile market. The Shoppers Auto
Guild raises concerns that Sukonda's proprietary digital initiatives may sideline third-party
service providers and smaller retailers, potentially leading to monopolistic practices.

The Sukonda stated that its digital ecosystem enhances consumer convenience and market
transparency rather than creating barriers to competition. The integration of AR features
allows consumers to visualize the "Storm" model in their own environments, significantly
improving the customer experience. Additionally, the AI-driven chatbots provide personalized
assistance, making the purchasing process more accessible and efficient for consumers.

By investing in these technologies, Sukonda is not only meeting consumer demand for
innovative solutions but also setting a benchmark for industry standards. The digital platform
facilitates better engagement with customers, streamlining operations and reducing reliance on
physical dealerships. This shift aligns with contemporary consumer preferences for digital-
first interactions, especially in the wake of increased online shopping trends

In reference to the legal precedent stated in the case Hoffman-La Roche v. Commission
position is the case of Hoffman-La Roche v. Commission. In this case, the European Court of
Justice examined whether certain practices by Hoffman-La Roche constituted abuse of
dominance. The court ruled that technological advancements are deemed pro-competitive
when they benefit consumers and enhance market efficiency.

Facts of the case, Hoffman-La Roche was accused of engaging in practices that restricted
competition in the vitamin market. However, the company argued that its investments in
research and development led to significant innovations that benefited consumers.the
judgment that the court found that while Hoffman-La Roche held a dominant position, its
technological advancements were pro-competitive and contributed positively to consumer
welfare. The ruling emphasized that innovation should be encouraged as it leads to better
19 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA
products and services for consumers.

Applying the principles from Hoffman-La Roche, Sukonda can assert that its digital initiatives
do not foreclose competitors but instead foster an environment where innovation thrives. The
company's AR and AI technologies set a high standard within the industry, encouraging other
manufacturers to enhance their digital offerings to remain competitive.The Shoppers Auto
Guild's claims that Sukonda's platform creates barriers are unfounded, as there is no evidence
suggesting that competitors are unable to innovate or offer similar services due to Sukonda's
advancements. Instead, Sukonda's initiatives may serve as a catalyst for broader industry
innovation, prompting competitors to develop their own digital solutions.
The arguments in favor of Sukonda’s digital platform enhances market transparency by
providing consumers with detailed information about the "Storm" model, including features,
pricing, and availability. This transparency empowers consumers to make informed decisions.
The use of AR technology allows customers to interact with the product in a unique way,
fostering greater engagement and interest in the vehicle. This level of interactivity can lead to
higher customer satisfaction and loyalty. Rather than stifling competition, Sukonda’s
innovations may encourage other players in the market to invest in similar technologies to
enhance their offerings. This dynamic can lead to a more competitive landscape benefiting
consumers. There is no demonstrable evidence that Sukonda's digital ecosystem has prevented
competitors from accessing similar technologies or offering comparable services. Competitors
remain free to innovate within their own platforms without facing undue barriers. The shift
toward digital solutions aligns with evolving consumer preferences for convenience and
efficiency in purchasing vehicles. By embracing these trends, Sukonda is enhancing its
relevance in a competitive market.
In conclusion, Sukonda’s digital ecosystem does not create barriers to competition or stifle
innovation; rather, it fosters pro-competitive innovation that enhances consumer welfare. The
legal precedent established in Hoffman-La Roche v. Commission supports this view by
affirming that technological advancements should be encouraged when they benefit
consumers and improve market dynamics. Therefore, Sukonda's digital initiatives should be
viewed as legitimate enhancements to its business model that align with competition law
principles while promoting innovation and consumer satisfaction within the Scindian
automobile market.

20 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implored before this Hon’ble Court that it may be graciously pleased: -

I. To disqualify the 16 MLAs who defied the party whip and engaged in conduct
indicating voluntary resignation from the party, under the provisions of the Anti-
Defection Law.

II. To uphold the whip's legality, disqualify the 16 MLAs, validate the Deputy Speaker's
authority, and invalidate the no-confidence motion against the Deputy Speaker

III. To issue necessary direction for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights

To pass any order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the favour of Petitioner to meet the
ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDANT

21 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT
\ BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF SCINDIA

22 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDANT