M/s Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited v. Pvr Picture Limited, New Delhi & Ors.

CCI8 May 201371/2011

What the court decided

AI extract

Issue for consideration

Whether various acts and conduct of Opposite Party 2 regarding film registration and dispute settlement are anti-competitive under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Competition Act, 2002? +1 more

A compact analysis

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.

M/s Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited vs Pvr Picture… — Company and Corporate | CCI (2013)

M/s Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited v. Pvr Picture Limited, New Delhi & Ors.

CCI8 May 201371/2011

Download

What the court decided

AI extract

Issue for consideration

A compact analysis

¶30

The present Information was filed on 04.11.2011 by M/s Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the Informant”) under section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against M/s PVR Pictures Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.1”), Northern India Motion Pictures Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.2”), Motion Pictures Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite party No.3”), Central Circuit Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.4), Telangana Telugu Films Distributors (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.5”), Telangana Film Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.6”), Film distributors Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.7”), Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.8”), Eastern India Motion Picture Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No.9”), Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.10”), Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce (Opposite Party referred to as “the Opposite Party No.11”), Nepal Motion Picture Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No. 12”), Orissa Film distributors Syndicate (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.13”), The Chennai Kanchipuram Thiruvallur (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.14”), Indian Motion Picture Distributor’s Association(hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.15”), Bihar & Jharkhand Motion Pictures Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.16”), Indian Film Exporters Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.17”) and Eros International Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposite Party No.18 or Eros”) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act by the opposite parties.

¶61

SI. No.	Name of the Association	Date of Incorporation/ Act Under which formed	Circuit/ Territories
1.	Northern India Motion Pictures Association, Jalandhar	50 years back/ Registered u/s 25 of Companies Act	Punjab, Haryana, J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh (UT)
2	Bihar & Jharkhand Motion Pictures Association, Patna	1987/ The Companies Act, 1956	Entire State of Bihar & Jharkhand
3	Central Circuit Cine Association, Indore/ Bhusawal/ Jaipur	1952/ The Companies Act, 1913	M.P., Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and part of Maharashtra (Vidarbha & Khandesh region)
4	Motion Pictures Association, Delhi	More than 50 years/ Registered u/s 25 of Companies Act	Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand
5	Film Distributors’ Association (FDA), Ernakulam	1987/ Regd. Societies Registration Act, 1955	State of Kerala
6	The Karnataka Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), Bengaluru	1944/ Karnataka Societies Registration Act	Mysore territory and most of the parts of Karnataka
7	(a) Telangana Telugu Film Distributors Association, Secunderabad (b) Andhra Pradesh Film	1999/ Andhra Pradesh Public Societies Registration Act, 1350	Nizam area of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka

¶63

	Chamber of Commerce
8	Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, Kolkata	1945/ Registered u/s 25 of Companies Act 1956	West Bengal, Odisha States
9	Utkal Cine Chamber of Commerce	1993/ Certificate of registration Act 1860	State of Odisha
10	Indian Motion Picture distributors Association, Mumbai		Gujarat, Goa & Maharashtra (except some part under Vidarbha region) and parts of Karnataka
11	(a) South India Film Chamber of Commerce (b) Film Distributors Association, Kerala	Registered under the societies Act.	Tamilnadu, Kerala

¶80

Association to resort to anti-competitive conduct against the informant. In the letter written by the Opposite Party No. 1 on 27.01.2011 to the Opposite Party No.2, it had mentioned that Please ensure that the picture Run Bhola Run is not registered or allowed to be released till the settlement of our claim in ‘Full and Final’ . As per the DG report, although the Opposite Party No. 1 in its individual capacity had no role in controlling the film distribution market in the territory of the Opposite Party No. 2 but, its role in decision making process of the anti-competitive conduct cannot be denied. By suggesting the Association to not allow the release of the film of the informant, by invoking its decision to not register or release a film is a violation of the provisions of Act. The investigation also revealed that only after settlement of claim of the Opposite Party No. 1 by the informant and issue of no objection letter on 10.11.2011, the film could be released on 11.11.2011. Thus the circumstances clearly indicate that the informant was pressured by refusing to register the film in the territory of the Opposite Party No.2. As per the DG report, the Opposite Party No. 1 in its reply has claimed that the Commission directed the Informant to pay unrecouped advances along with the interest to the Opposite Party No.1. The order u/s 33 of the Act on this case was passed by the Commission on 18.11.2011, whereas the payment was made by the informant to the Opposite Party No. 1 on 10.11.2011 i.e . one date before the release of film. Further, in the order of the Commission, no such direction to the informant regarding making payment to the Opposite Party No. 1 could be noticed. In the order, while deciding the case on the request for interim relief, the Commission opined that there would not be ay irreparable loss if the informant deposits the amount with the Opposite Party No. 2 (not to the Opposite Party No.1) till the adjudication of the claim. Thus, apparently wrong facts have been quoted by the Opposite Party No. 1 in its reply to justify its conduct. As per DG report, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that the payment made by the informant to the Opposite Party No. 1 to secure the smooth release of the film in the territory of the Opposite Party No.2.

M/s Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited v. Pvr Picture Limited, New Delhi & Ors.

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/s Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited v. Pvr Picture Limited, New Delhi & Ors.

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Coram