The caveat seeks to ensure that they are a party to the case and will be called to present their views on the matter, multiple sources aware of the development told ET.
The caveat was filed last week through the Alliance of Digital India Foundation (ADIF), one of the parties in the Google’s Play Store commission issue.
Google has 60 days to challenge the order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), either in NCLAT or a high court.
The antitrust regulator had on October 25
imposed a penalty of Rs 936.44 crore on Google for abusing its dominant position with respect to its Play Store policies, apart from issuing a cease-and-desist order.
“This case will set a precedent and we want to make sure that all the effort is not lost when the final verdict comes out,” said one industry executive. “The case needs to be represented well and it also needs to get to a logical conclusion and that becomes a question for future cases.”
Discover the stories of your interest
A caveat petition is a precautionary measure undertaken by an individual or entity anticipating that another individual or entity may file an application in a suit or proceeding against the person or entity in court.
It is a formal notice through which a person or entity receives intimation before any legal action is taken against the person or the entity.
On Tuesday, Google said it would
pause the enforcement of its deadline for Indian developers to adopt Google Play’s billing system. Legal experts told ET that the move was on expected lines.
“Following the CCI’s recent ruling, we are pausing enforcement of the requirement for developers to use Google Play’s billing system for the purchase of digital goods and services for transactions by users in India while we review our legal options and ensure we can continue to invest in Android and Play,” Google said in a blog post.
Many anticipated that its next step would be to appeal the CCI order.
Indian developers, too, are keeping all options open. The caveat petition is being viewed as one such measure.
“It is a standard practice that the informants (petitioners) would have filed because it is known that Google will not take these verdicts lying down,” a lawyer who did not wish to be named told ET.
For all the latest Technology News Click Here
