9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce with the parties on 7th January, 2014. After hearing the parties on the said date, the Commission was primarily of the view that the Informant was aggrieved by the conduct of BCCI that was already found to be in contravention of Section 4(2)(c), i.e. denial of market access to organisation of domestic private professional cricket leagues/events, in the order dated 08th February, 2013, in the Surinder Singh Barmi v. BCCI in Case No. 61/2010 (Surinder Singh Barmi case). Since the Commission's order in the said case was under appeal at that point of time, the Commission opined that if the erstwhile COMPAT upholds the Commission's order in Surinder Singh Barmi case, the Informant could move an application under Section 42 of the Act. Thus, the matter was closed by the Commission under Section 26(2) of the Act, vide Order dated 16th January, 2014. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Commission dated 16th January, 2014, the Informant filed an appeal before the erstwhile COMPAT (Appeal No. 31/2014). In the meantime, the COMPAT, vide its order dated 23rd February, 2015, set aside the Commission's order under Section 27 of the Act passed in Surinder Singh Barmi case and remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;IPL'), which is being promoted by BCCI, was only a belated move to adopt a similar format of the game and thereby thwart ICL and its first mover advantage in the relevant market. Enraged with the prospect of a rival league, BCCI issued several warning letters to players, office bearers and affiliated entities and to stadiums, through June to August, 2007, restricting them from participating in any unauthorised tournament/matches or else they shall lose their benefits and privileges. 8. Apart from withdrawal of several benefits to ICL players, BCCI also imposed a virtual ban on them and also pressurised various PSUs and companies to terminate the employments of players associated with ICL. The Informant has cited two instances to substantiate its contention which are as follows: 8.1. Air India sent a letter dated 22nd August, 2007 to Mr. Dinesh Jadhav stating that whilst he has been "recruited in Air India on supernumerary basis under sports quota to play for Air India in tournaments affiliated to MCA and BCCI. However, on joining ICL you will be banned by BCCI as a result of which you will not be able to represent Air India in any corporate tournaments which is not accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge and granted an interim injunction preventing the Informant from proceeding with the action against ICC and ECB, pending in the Chancery Division, London. An SLP was filed by the Informant on 13th July, 2011 against the Order of the Division Bench which was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of filing the Information. 13. Highlighting the aforesaid facts, the Informant submits that ICL continues to be plagued with the unfair conduct of BCCI's denial of permission to host the ICL matches. It is further stated by the Informant that in addition to disruption of organization of ICL, BCCI attempted to dislodge and sabotage the revival of ICL by filing concocted documents before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. As per the Informant, BCCI prepared self-serving documents in the case of Mr. Kapil Dev and Mr. Kiran More, to inculpate its illegal and anti-competitive conduct. However, as stated, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide an Order dated 26th August, 2013, dismissed the application of BCCI seeking interrogatories from the Informant on the above two purported Letters dated 24th July, 2012 and 07th July, 2012. 14. Placing reliance on the aforesaid bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the arbitral tribunal. 17. The Informant has further alleged that pursuant to the Surinder Singh Barmi case, the Informant wrote to ICC seeking revision of its decision regarding ICL. ICC responded vide Letter dated 11th August, 2013 stating that it has forwarded the Letter to its lawyers and indicating that a response shall be given in due course. It is submitted that neither has the ICC granted the approval sought for nor has it placed any sanctions on BCCI in relation to its anti-competitive conduct. The Informant further submitted that ICC, vide its communication dated 20th April, 2009, had categorically refused permission to the Informant to conduct ICL, pursuant to the resolution of BCCI, expressing its resolve against the hosting of ICL. Thus, the evasion to provide appropriate response/resolution by ICC in the year 2013 has to be seen in the context of the express denial in the year 2009. Based on this, it has been alleged that the decision of BCCI to boycott ICL and its refusal to accord permission for hosting the matches of ICL is in gross violation of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act, as it denies market access to the Informant. 18. The Informant has also contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Informant in the preliminary conference held on 02 nd May, 2018. 22. During the preliminary conference held on 02nd May, 2018, the learned senior counsel representing the Informant submitted that though the exclusionary conduct on the part of BCCI started before May, 2009, it continued thereafter as shown in the information by way of various events/happenings that took place after May, 2009. Thus, the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate the present matter. It was further argued that the present case is not covered by the order of the Commission in Surinder Singh Barmi case. While the allegations in Surinder Singh Barmi case pertained to irregularities in the grant of media rights, franchise rights and sponsorship rights for IPL, the present case pertain to limiting market access to organization of private professional cricket league and leveraging. It was further argued that the Commission has already held BCCI dominant in the Surinder Singh Barmi case and since the facts and allegations of present case are different from those alleged in Surinder Singh Barmi case, a fresh investigation is warranted. The Informant has argued that the issue of blacklisting by BCCI co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CI under the pyramid structure of sports governance, the undisputable market share and strong position of BCCI in terms of size, resources and economic power. The Commission observed that BCCI is the only association for cricket in India at national level and in that capacity, ICC vests it with certain rights. Prime amongst them is the right to sanction/approve cricket events in India. Based on all these factors, the Commission found BCCI to be holding a dominant position in the relevant market for organization of professional domestic cricket leagues/events in India. 28. Undoubtedly, the sports federations engaged in organization of tournaments/ leagues are put to advantage if they also possess the authority to grant approval for organization of similar events by others and set conditions for such organization. This is so in the present case. Thus, in view of the facts of the present case, the Commission is convinced that BCCI prima facie enjoys a dominant position in the relevant market for organization of professional domestic cricket leagues/events in India. 29. With regard to abuse, it has been argued that BCCI has systematically excluded the Informant from participating in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ights for IPL. It was highlighted by the Informant in the preliminary conference held on 02nd May, 2018 that the BCCI is continuing with such restriction as a similar/identical clause is still present in the tenders issued by BCCI [e.g. clause 3.6.5 and 3.6.6 of the recent invitation to tender for Media Rights for IPL (2018-2022)] whereby the Informant and its group companies have been foreclosed from participating in any media rights tenders issued by BCCI. 32. Thus, it appears that BCCI has abused its dominant position in the market of organization of professional domestic cricket leagues in India by excluding the Informant or any of its group companies from participating in tenders for media rights for IPL. 33. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Commission is of the view that apart from restraining the organisation of a competitive league (i.e. ICL) by the Informant, the BCCI appears to have excluded the Informant in the downstream market by disallowing it to bid for the media rights for IPL. Such denial prima facie appears to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. As stated earlier, the sports federations engaged in organization of tournament ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
