9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngaged in anti-competitive practices in violation of Section 3(1) and 3(3)(b) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.9,72,943/- on the Appellant. Brief Facts: Appellant's Submissions : 2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that aggrieved by the order of the Commission dated 30.08.2018 whereby the Commission imposed penalty of Rs.9,72,943/- on the Appellant, the present appeal is filed on the grounds and reasons as mentioned in the appeal. It is submitted that the allegation made by the 2nd Respondent who is an Informant with regard to the activities that purportedly caused by the Appellant and other opposite parties, which according to the Informant directly amounts to anti-competitive as per Section 3 of Chapter-II of the Competition Act, 2002. However, the Learned Counsel submitted that the 2nd Respondent / Informant failed to establish the case against the Appellant, however, the Commission passed the impugned order, without any reasons, thus, the impugned order is under challenged in this Appeal. The Learned Counsel submitted the brief facts of the case. 3. It is submitted that the Appellant is a society registered under the Mysore Societies Registration on 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turnover and considering the total turnover of Appellant, thereby being contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Excel Crop. Care Limited V. Competition Commission of India and Ors., (2017) 8 SCC 47. It is submitted that the activities of the appellant, coordination, cooperation and coexistence in the film industry in a peaceful manner with no profit motive. Therefore, the Appellant Chamber will have to terminate employees and possibly close down its activities. 8. It is submitted that the impugned order and the DG's report, both prima-facie lack of evidence (documentary, oral, electronic) and therefore are unsustainable in the eyes of law. In fact, there is no evidence, primary or secondary which affixes the Appellant's anti-competitive conduct in the present matter nor does the evidence on record even corroborate the liability or the culpability of the Appellant. 9. The impugned order and the DG report completely ignored the fact that the present complaint lodged by the Informant Mr. G. Krishnamurthy, Respondent No.2 herein is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. The said informant had already filed civil suits against the appellant, out of per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and by mere dis-association cannot absolve itself of the same. The Learned Counsel submitted that there is ample evidence to show from the DG's report and the Commission's order that the Appellant contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and the Commission's order is in accordance with law. Hence the Learned Counsel prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the Appeal. Analysis / Appraisal : 15. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the pleadings, documents and relevant citations. 16. For better appreciation we need to show the parties arrayed before this Tribunal and the Commission/1st Respondent. Sl. No. Before NCLAT Before Commission a) 1st Respondent (CCI) Nil b) 2nd Respondent (Mr. G. Krishnamurthy) Informant c) Appellant (Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) Opposite Party (OP) No.1 d) 3rd Respondent (Kannada Okkuta) Opposite Party (OP) No.2 e) 4th Respondent (Mr. Jaggesh) Opposite Party (OP) No.3 f) 5th Respondent (Mr. Vatal Nagaraj) Opposite Party (OP) No.4 g) 6th Respondent (SA.Ra. Govindhu) Opposite Party (OP) No.5 17. The 1st Respondent passed the order dated 30.08.2018 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g social media or other means to defame the Respondents or his movie. The Civil Court granted an ex-parte injunction on 09.03.2017 restraining the Defendants from making defamatory comments through any form of social media. 21. The 1st Respondent after receipt of information passed an order dated 14.09.2017 under Section 26(1) of the Act directed the Director General (in short "DG") to cause investigation into the allegation made by the Informant. The DG conducted investigation and submitted its report dated 10.04.2018 and the 1st Respondent after hearing the parties passed the order. The bone of contention of the 2nd Respondent that the Appellant and the Respondents No.3 to 6 and the Opposite Parties contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 22. The DG after its investigation found that the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent provided the necessary platform as an Association to their key office bearers i.e. the 5th and 6th Respondents along with 4th Respondent to issue statements during the press meet on 01.03.2017 at Press Club, Bengaluru. It is also found that the such statements instigated the sentiments of the public. Even the 5th Respondent stated to torch the theatr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kannada film industry apart from Shri H. Shivaram, Honorary Secretary of Respondent No.3. Further, the 5th Respondent claimed immunity for himself for the actions against the agitators. It is clinching evidence from the tweet of the 4th Respondent which published in the newspaper dated 02.03.2017 whereby it was tweeted that he will burn down the theatres in case dubbed cinemas are released. The content of the tweet thus read as under: "I have gone through the newspaper cutting and want to state that this tweet was an emotional outburst on account of my long-held belief against dubbed cinemas and it was not directed towards one cinema. What I have said is that I will commit self-immolation before the theatres, if these movies played, all this was an emotional outburst." 26. The 1st Respondent vide order dated 27.07.2016 directed the Appellant to cease and desist from practices restricting dubbed cinema in the State of Karnataka. The said order attained finality and the Appellant and other members are bound by the said order. However, the Opposite Parties deliberately disobeyed the said order. 27. The 6th Respondent admitted participating in the press meet organised by the 5th R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said press meets which brings out the role of the Appellant and the 6th Respondent in calling the press meet. The relevant part of the statements of Mr. Rangayna Raghu (Actor), Mr. Sadhu Kokila (Actor/Singer/Producer/ Director) and Mr. J.K. Srinivas Murthy (Actor/Producer/Director) respectively are reproduced hereunder: "Statement of Mr. Rangayna Raghu "Ques. 2 You are being shown a YouTube video of the press meet held at Press Club, Bangalore, on 01.03.2017. Who has arranged this press meet and who were the other members who have addressed the press with regard to release of dubbed movie "Sathyadev IPS"? Ans. 2 The press meet was called by Mr Vatal Nagraj and Mr. Sa Ra Govindu...." "Statement of Mr. Sadhu Kokola "Ques. 2 You are being shown a YouTube video of the press meet held a Press Club, Bangalore, on 01.03.2017. Who has arranged this press meet and ...? Ans. 2 The press meet was organised by KFCC...." "Statement of Mr. Srinivasa Murthy "Ques. 2 You are being shown a YouTube video of the press meet held a Press Club, Bangalore, on 01.03.2017. Who has arranged this press meet and...? Ans. 2 The Press meet was organised by KFCC Sa ra Govindu and Mr Vatal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctions like minimum number of hours for Kannada language programs. 7.21 The DG investigation has not shown that the Government of India or the State Government has banned the telecast of dubbed version in India or in Karnataka. Most importantly, the viewers/consumers are not forced to watch any dubbed contents. It is the discretion of the viewer to exercise her choice as to which programme she wants to watch. She has to pay for the programms she wants to watch as most of the entertainment programms on TV are not available free of cost. Therefore, it is the viewer who should have the choice to watch a dubbed programme or original language programme or any other programme. Trade associations such as OP-1 and OP-2 cannot become the self-appointed guardians of local language and culture and interfere with the market forces. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Commission agrees with the DG that the justification offered by OP-1 and OP-2 is liable to be rejected." 34. Against the above order of the Commission dated 27.07.2015, the State of Karnataka including the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Appellate Forum challenging the said order, however, the Appellate Tribunal dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
