Dismissed

Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce And Others

CCI11 Jun 202440/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Competition Commission dismissed the Information filed by Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce alleging violations by various film associations. Closure order was passed due to lack of clarification and insufficient credible evidence regarding the alleged boycott and anticompetitive practices.

What did the court decide?

The matter was closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 due to lack of sufficient and credible information.

Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce And Others — CCI (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶2

Case No. 40 of 2023

¶3

In Re:

¶4

Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce through, Mr. Krishnegowda S/o Mayannagowda (President) G-10 Krishna Tower, 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bengaluru 560009

¶5

Informant

¶6

And

¶7

Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce Opposite Party No. 1 through its President/Secretary No. 28, 1^st Main Road, Crescent Road, Bengaluru 560001 Karnataka Film Producers Association Opposite Party No. 2 through its President/Secretary 1025/138, S.V. Towers, 2^nd Main Road 5^th Block, WOC Road, Bengaluru 560010 D.K. Ramakrishna @ Praveen Kumar Opposite Party No. 3 House No. 16, Belsy, STS Cross, R.M.V., 2^nd Stage, 3^rd Block, Bengaluru 560094 Madhavananda Yogappa Shegunashi Opposite Party No. 4 No. 1061, Near Khadi Gramodyoga Main road, At post Terdal, Rabakavi Banahatti, Taluk, Bagalakot Distt. 587315 S Kumar Srinivasa Murthy Opposite Party No. 5 No. 09, 1^st A Main Road, Gavipura, H.B.C.S. Layout, Nirman School Near Ullala Road, Bengaluru 560056

Case No. 40 of 2023

Page 1 of 4

CORAM

Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson

¶12

Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member

¶13

Mr. Deepak Anurag Member

¶14

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

¶15

The present Information has been filed by Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce through its President Mr. Krishnegowda (‘ Informant ’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘ Act ’).

¶16

It is alleged that in complete disregard of the order dated 27.07.2015 in Case No. 58 of 2012, passed under Section 27 of the Act by the Commission, D.K. Ramakrishna @ Praveen Kumar (‘OP-3’), Mr. Madhavananda Yogappa Shegunashi (‘ OP-4 ’) and Mr. S. Kumar Shreenivasamurthy (‘ OP-5 ’) have started instigating the members of Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (‘ OP-1’ ), Karnataka Television Association and Karnataka Film Producers Association (OP-2 ) as well as other bodies/organisation associated with regional films to boycott Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce (‘ Informant ’) and ban the release and broadcast of any dubbed content. (hereinafter, OP-1 to OP-5 are collectively referred to as OPs). It is alleged that the OPs are in violation of Section 3(1), 3(3), 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act.

¶17

It is averred that in the order dated 27.07.2015, organisations including OP-1 and OP2 were, inter alia , directed by the Commission to cease and desist from certain anticompetitive practices and the same were found to be in violation of the Act.

¶18

It is alleged that the OPs have again started disobeying the order of the Commission and also instigating others to defy the order/direction passed by the Commission.

¶19

It is further alleged that OPs are trying to boycott the Informant through series of communications (including posts on social media platforms) urging ban on release and

¶20

Case No. 40 of 2023

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

broadcast of any dubbed content in contempt of the Commission’s order dated 27.07.2015. The Informant has alleged that audio clips are being widely circulated in multiple WhatsApp groups and social media hurling abuses at President of Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce (earlier known as Dubbing Film Chamber of Commerce) and is further instigating thousands of citizens to disobey the order passed by the Commission. The Informant stated that it even sent a legal notice.

¶23

The Informant has averred that due to non-compliance of the order dated 27.07.2015, a complaint was filed under section 42(3) of the Act before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House District Court, New Delhi and that KFCC, KFPA and other organisations paid the fine to comply with the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Commission. On the basis of the same, the Informant also submitted that the Commission had decided not to proceed further and that the compliance was not limited to payment of fine but also to "cease and desist" from indulging in anticompetitive practices.

¶24

The Informant has prayed for an interim relief under Section 33 of the Act to pass an order restraining the OPs from circulating messages and/or audio clips and/or by any other mean from instigating the members of the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, Karnataka Television Association and Karnataka Film Producers Association as well as the other bodies/organization associated with regional films, to boycott Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce and also, from banning the release and broadcast of any dubbed content.

¶25

The Informant has prayed to the Commission to take cognisance of the present Information and punish the OPs as per the provisions of the Act.

¶26

Vide order dated 07.02.2024, the Commission sought certain additional information/comments/clarification from the Informant. In its meeting held on 01.05.2024, the Commission noted that the order dated 07.02.2024 was received by the Informant on 22.02.2024. The Commission further noted that neither the Informant has filed any reply nor sought any extension of time for filing the same. Consequently, the Commission decided to pass an appropriate order in due course on the basis of facts available in the Information filed by the Informant.

¶27

Case No. 40 of 2023

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

After perusal of the material available on record, the Commission notes that the Informant failed to provide clarification/comments as sought. As a result, the present matter is found to lack sufficient and credible information about the conduct of the OPs, alleged to be violative of Section 3 and 4 of the Act. Therefore, the Commission directs that the matter be closed forthwith under Section 26(2) of the Act.

¶30

The Secretary is directed to communicate the decision of the Commission to the Informant, accordingly.

¶31

Sd/(Ravneet Kaur) Chairperson

¶32

Sd/(Sweta Kakkad) Member

¶33

Sd/(Deepak Anurag) Member

¶34

New Delhi Date: 11/06/2024

¶35

Case No. 40 of 2023

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases