9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... un Banega Crorepati-2 (KBC)", averring that though the petitioner had spent large sums of monies in his attempt to participate in the said show but had not been able to; that the organizers of the show were duping the participants of crores of rupees and indulging in foul play and were selecting persons to finally contest the show and win the cash or kind prizes instead of the same being done as per the procedure advertised. The petitioner had in the said writ petition claimed payment of the monies spent by him. The said writ petition was entertained. However, during the pendency thereof, the television show came to an end and when another season thereof was started, the writ petition was converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position. Accordingly, it was held that no case of violation of provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 of the Competition Act was made out and thus need was not felt to refer the matter to the Director General for further investigation. 7. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 53B of the Competition Act against the order aforesaid of CCI to the Comp. A.T. 8. The Comp. A.T. vide order dated 25.07.2011 impugned in this petition, dismissed the proceedings received on transfer from MRTPC as infructuous for the reason of the petitioner having preferred a complaint under Section 19 of the Competition Act on some facts and the same complaint having been dismissed and appeal having been preferred thereagainst. 9. The Comp. A.t. vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion show not being in a dominant position is incorrect nor any document in this regard is shown. The viewership ratings/figures are now published/ advertised widely and no error can be found especially when it was not disputed before the Comp. A.T. and not disputed before this Court that the finding of the CCI of the subject television show being not in a dominating position. 13. Coming back to the first contention of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to para 6 of the order of the CCI upheld by the Comp. A.T. and contended that the observations therein are contrary to the observations in para 14 of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. Similarly, it is contended that the observati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
