1. The present matter relates to an information under section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed on 20.04.2011 by Mrs. Manju Tharad, Proprietress of Manjoranjan Films (hereinafter referred to as the "Informant") against Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (hereinafter referred to as "EIMPA/ Opposite Party No. 1") and Central Board of Film Certification, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "CBFC/ Opposite Party No. 2") alleging that the Opposite Parties are abusing their dominant position in violation of the provisions of the Act.

2. The facts as stated in the information, in brief, are as under:

2.1 The informant is engaged in the business of distribution of cinematographic films and happens to be a member of Eastern India Motion Pictures Association (EIMPA), Kolkata.

2.2 The informant signed a MoU on 24.08.2010 and thereafter executed a Licence Agreement on 28.12.2010 with Skywings International Limited, producer of a cinematograph film "Golapi Akhon Bilate" in Bengali language, for accruing the rights for distribution, video, satellite cable and for dubbing the said film in any of the regional languages.

2.3 The informant has submitted that the MoU and execution of License Agreement with M/s. Skywings International Limited as above was as per the rules and regulations prescribed by the Government of India in this regard. As a member of EIMPA, the informant applied for registration of the title of the said film in the prescribed form for distribution, exhibition and video, satellite cable transmission in the territory under the control of the association; Based on the declaration submitted by the informant on 15th September, 2010 to the effect that the film is neither a joint venture film with foreign countries nor a dubbed film, EIMPA registered the film on 01.10.2010.

2.4 The informant has further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of CBFC, title registration with any association is not mandatory for foreign film. However, as per the terms of the First Schedule of the Cinematograph (Certification,) Rules 1983, CBFC usually demand such registration certificate in case of dubbed films produced in India.

2.5 According to the informant, she submitted the' registration certificate issued by EIMPA to CBFC while applying for Censor Certificate before releasing the said film. EIMPA issued a show-cause notice to the informant on 10.03.2011 stating that she had submitted a wrong declaration in the application for registration of the title with regards to its status as a producer member.

2.6 Subsequently, EIMPA deregistered the said Title on 25.03.2011 and thereafter informed its decision to CBFC. Based on the information of EIMPA regarding derecognition of the said Title, CBFC issued a show-cause notice to the informant on 05.04.2011 as to why the certificate issued by it should not be cancelled as the title registration had already been cancelled.

2.7 The informant has further submitted that it applied to EIMPA for the provisional title registration of the said film as an applicant and not as a producer of the film as it did before CBFC. Therefore, it had not submitted wrong declaration to EIMPA.

2.8 The informant has alleged that in abuse of its dominant position, EIMPA does not allow registration of regional or national languages films which are dubbed in Bengali language, unless the films are produced in language of the states where it operates. According to the informant, this attitude of EIMPA is unjust and unfair and because of this attitude, the informant is not allowed to do a fair business.

2.9 It has also been alleged that by deregistering the said title, EIMPA and CBFC have denied the market access to the informant. The act of EIMPA to direct the exhibitor members not to screen the said film, if released, is an unfair trade practice.

2.10 The Informant also submitted an application for order under section 33 of the Act seeking interim relief for issuance of directions to