Next Radio Limited v. Prasar Bharti & Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission rectified an order passed under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, which erroneously stated that the Informant had amicably settled the matter. The Court noted the actual High Court order was disposed on party consent without a settlement-based compromise.
What did the court decide?
Order dated 4th July, 2017 modified to rectify the observation regarding amicable settlement.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
27.07.2017
Case No. 29/2016
Informant: Next Radio Limited
Opposite Parties: OP-1 - Prasar Bharti, Directorate General, All India Radio OP-2 - Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
ORDER
In the instant information, the Commission, vide order dated 4th July, 2017 passed under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘ Act ’), has inter-alia , directed the Director General (‘ DG ’) to cause an investigation into the matter.
- Subsequently, the Informant has moved an application on 17th July, 2017 seeking rectification of an observation contained in the aforesaid order dated 4th July, 2017, which reads as under:
- “ 23. The Commission notes that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1074/2016 filed by the Informant on 29.04.2016 after relying on its earlier order in Writ Petition No. 2913/2016 which was filed by Reliance Broadcast Network Limited against the Prasar Bharti and Anr. Upon perusal of the said order of the High Court of Delhi, it seems that the Informant has amicably settled the matter with OP 1. However, the Commission is of the opinion that the settlement of parties as per the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi would not deter the proceedings before the Commission as the Act does not provide for any settlement between the parties for any alleged anti-competitive activity. ”
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to correct an erroneous observation in the Commission's order that suggested an amicable settlement existed between the parties.
How to interpret the High Court order disposing of WP(C) No. 1074/2016 on consent of parties.
Whether the inquiry by the Competition Commission is barred due to any alleged settlement between parties.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Next Radio Limited
- respondent
Prasar Bharti
- respondent
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page
- Order 2
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court