2017 Supreme(SC) 256

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Competition Commission of India - Appellant
Versus
Co-Ordination Committee of Artists And Technicians of W.B. Film & Television & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6691 of 2014
Decided On : 07-03-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Protection in the name of the language goes against the interest of competition.

Headnote:(a) Competition Act, 2002 – Section 19(5) – Relevant market – Either geographic market, section 19(6); or product market, section 19(7) – Defining product starts with a relatively narrow potential product market definition and the expanded – Geographic market is also defined similarly – Key issue is power over the market. (Para 34, 35)

       (b) Competition Act, 2002 – Section 19(7) – Instantly geographic market is State of West Bengal – Coordination Committee opposing ‘broadcast of television serial ‘Mahabharat’in the dubbed form – Adversely affecting TV and Film Industry of West Bengal – Agitation out of Coordination Committee’s concern to save the entire TV and Film Industry – Not relevant factor for defining relevant market – Therefore entire film and television industry of West Bengal forming relevant market. (Para 36, 37)

       (c) Section 3 – Entities whose agreements are offending may comprise enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons – Any arrangement or understanding or even action in concert is 'agreement' – Should relate to an economic activity – Being formal or informal, oral or written makes no difference – Coordination Committee covered by definition of person – Not undertaking any economic activity – Not an enterprise – Not falling u/s 3(1) – But backing the cause of those which are ‘enterprises’ – Not a trade union – Prohibition by respondents on exhibition of dubbed serial on television preventing competing parties in pursuing their commercial activities – CCI rightly observing that protection in the name of the language goes against the interest of competition, depriving consumers of exercising their choice – Acts of Coordination Committee limiting the supply of serial dubbed in Bangla amounting to violation of the provision of Section 3(3)(b). ((Para 39, 41, 42)

       Facts of the case:

       M/s. BRTV, Mumbai, which is the producer of T.V. programmes, had produced T.V. Serial named 'Mahabharat', original version whereof was in Hindi. BRTV entrusted the sole and exclusive rights of ‘Mahabharat’ to M/s. Magnum T.V. Serials to dub the Hindi version of the said serial in Bangla with further rights to exploit its Satellite, Pay TV, DTH, IPTV, Video, Cable TV and internet rights till September, 2016. Magnum TV, in turn, appointed Hart Video as the sub-assigner to dub the said serial 'Mahabharat' in Bangla language, which it did. Thereafter, for the purposes of telecasting the said dubbed serial, an agreement was executed for the time slot with M/s. Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, which is the owner of 'Channel 10', as well as with M/s. Calcutta Television Network Private Ltd., Kolkata, which is the owner of CTVN+ Channel.

       Certain producers in Eastern India have formed an association called Eastern India Motion Picture Association (EIMPA). Likewise, the artists and technicians of film and television industry in West Bengal have formed an association known as 'Committee of Artists and Technicians of West Bengal Film and Television Investors (Coordination Committee).

       On 18th February, 2011 CTVN+ received a letter from the Coordination Committee to stop the telecast of the dubbed serial ‘Mahabharat’. Letter dated 1st March, 2011 to the similar effect was written by EIMPA to CTVN+. Identical demands were made to this Channel by the Coordination Committee as well. Threat was also extended to CTVN+ as well as Channel 10 that in case the telecast is not stopped, their channels would face non-cooperation from these two bodies, i.e., EIMPA and the Coordination Committee.

       When Mr. Sajjan Khaitan (Respondent No. 2), Proprietor of M/s. Hart Video, came to know of the aforesaid developments and the threat extended to CTVN+ and Channel 10 and found that these two television channels were going to succumb to those pressures, he informed the CCI of the aforesaid details and requested the CCI to take action in the matter.

       The CCI formed a prima facie opinion that acts on the part of EIMPA and Coordination Committee were anti-competitive.

       The CCI as per majority held that Channel 10 stopped the telecast of serial as a direct consequence of the threats extended to it by EIMPA as well as Coordination Committee through their various letters coupled with the agitations and demonstration held by them.

       The Competition Appellate Tribunal set aside the majority view of CCI and allowed the appeal of the Coordination Committee.

       Finding of the Court:

       Protection in the name of the language goes against the interest of competition.

       Result: Appeal allowed.