Surinder Singh Barmi v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India
Case brief
What is this about?
Member M.L. Tayal dissented from the majority opinion, holding that BCCI qualifies as an "enterprise" under the Competition Act due to its incidental commercial activities. He found BCCI in a dominant position but ruled that its practices regarding franchise, media, and sponsorship rights did not constitute an abuse of dominance or a violation of sections 3 and 4.
What the court decided
Competition Commission of India Case No. 61 of 2010
February 08, 2013
In re Surinder Singh Barmi Informant v. IPL & Anr. Opposite Parties
Present : Shri C A Sundaram, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Nisha Kaur Uberoi, Ms. Rohini Musa and Shri Ragu Raman, Advocates for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
Per M.L. Tayal, Member (Dissenting)
I have had the advantage of reading the draft order prepared by my learned brethren. For the reasons recorded below, I regret my inability to lend concurrence with the reasoning and the decision arrived at therein. Therefore, I am writing this separate order.
BACKGROUND
- The present information was filed by Shri Surinder Singh Bermi („the informant‟) against Indian Premier League („the opposite party No.1‟/IPL) and Board of Control for Cricket in India („the opposite party No.2‟/BCCI) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 („the Act‟).
1
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether BCCI is an "enterprise" within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the opposite parties have contravened the provisions of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by abusing their dominant position.
Whether the provisions of section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 have been violated by BCCI.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Surinder Singh Barmi
- respondent
IPL
- respondent
BCCI
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court