The Competition Commission of India held that trade union pressure tactics such as strikes and boycotts by non-market players do not fall under Section 3 of the Competition Act, as Section 3 requires an agreement among enterprises in the relevant market. Consequently, the case against the protesting associations was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No.16/2011
Filed by 1,3,, o0 I2 SAJJAN KHAITAN, Proprietor, M/s. Heart Video �Informant Against
(1) President, Eastern India Motion Picture
Association and Ors. Opposite Parties
ORDER UNDER SECTION 26 (6) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002
Mr. Sajjan Khaitan, the Informant in this case is proprietor of M/s. Heart Video. Heart Video is engaged in business of distributing video cinematographic of TV serials for telecasting regional serials in Eastern India Regions.
. comr,Jif
0 * i *?J /
1
0 0
a meeting was held between OP-I, OP-11 and two channels with the intervention of Mr. Mithun Chakraborty on11 th April, 2011 in which CEO of Channel 10 was also present. Mr. Mithun Chakraborty requested Channels not to telecast Mahabharata dubbed in Bangla language. This request was acceded to by nhannel 10 only and not by CTVN Plus However, even Channel 10 vide its
I
*l Q I I
/e
letter dated13th April, 2011 informed to OP-11 and others that this request was being acceded to because of the intervention of Mr. Mithun Chakraborty and other respected persons but the issue of telecasting dubbed serial had not been properly addressed . The broadcasting of serial was agreed to be withdrawn by Channel 10 on17th April2011 with one condition that in case any other channel telecasted any Bangla language dubbed programme, then Channel-10 would also again start telecasting the programme. Channel CTVN Plus did not succumb to the pressure tactics and continued telecasting of dubbed serial Mahabharata. Other channels like Discovery Bangla were also telecasting English serials dubbed in Bangla language. Door Darshan was also telecasting some dubbed versions of film shots in other language, etc. Looking into this, Channel 10 also again started telecasting of dubbed serial 'Mahabharata'. It wrote letter dated7th May, 2011 to Opposite Party wherein it complained that though it was made to discontinue broadcasting serial Mahabharata, some Bangla channels were continuing screening of the films dubbed in Bangla language and similar other programmes. Channel 10 told Opposite Party-11 that it had stopped the telecast of Mahabharata (dubbed version) only because of mediation of Mr. Mithun Chakaravorty and due to respect to him. In the meantime, Sajjan Khaitan, Proprietor of Heart Video field present information before the Commission on20th April, 2011 regarding the violation of the Competition Act by the Opposite Parties, It made both the channels also as opposite parties . Channel 10 had rumed the telecasting of Mahabharata (dubbed version) from3rd July, 2011.
.*j
3
L28t L) I *d
1r
"relevant market" means the market which may be determined by the commission with reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to both the markets."
Thus, the relevant market can be determined either with reference to relevant product market or relevant geographic market or with reference to both. The relevant product market is defined in section -2 (t) as under:-
"relevant product market" means a market comprising all those products or services which are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, by reason of characteristics of the products or services, their prices and intended use."
Thus as per the definition of the relevant market, it must refer to some product or service which is regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumers by reason of characteristics of the product or services, its price or intended use.
*
)
/
6
COIL 1
Undisputedly none of the Opposite Party was active in the relevant market of broadcasting of dubbed TV serials. Since the Opposite Party-I was not active in the relevant market, the question of agreement among members of OP-1 Association or among the different unions forming OP-11 would not arise.
% (Ofli 7 !*) \ /
were threatened of boycott, strike etc. by the coordination committee of artists, etc. and one day strike was called by OP-11. However, the informant had already purchased rights to telecast Mahabharta and TV Channels were at liberty to ignore such coercive threats. In fact one channel did ignore threats and continued telecasting the serial. Merely, if someone under the threat or boycott, does not telecast some programme on his channels, for which it has legal rights, that would not be covered under section-3. Section-3 would have been attracted only if under some agreement, the informant had not been allowed the telecasting of the programme on T.V. Channels. Since the informant already had secured the rights of the telecasting of the programme, it was at liberty to telecast the programme and nobody could have stopped the viewers from viewing the programme. A threat of demonstration or dharna or strike if ignored, would not have affected the telecasting even by Channel-10. I think this kind of threat or action is not covered under section-3 and this case would not fall within the ambit of section-3.
broadcasting such serials, their right of expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution cannot be taken away by the Competition Act. Unless and until it is shown that the Opposite Parties were involved in economic activities in the same relevant market and they had entered into an agreement which finds foul with the provisions of section-3 of the Competition Act, provisions of section-3 cannot be invoked.
Sd! -
Member (D)
Certified T
S. F. GAHLAUT
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
\ ,* Competition Commission of India
New Delhi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether trade union pressure tactics like strikes and boycotts by non-market players violate Section 3 of the Competition Act.
Whether an agreement exists for Section 3 liability when opposite parties are not active in the relevant market defined as broadcasting of dubbed TV serials.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Competition Commission of India
Sajjan Khaitan
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
