9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able TV Network ("Informant No. 1") and Jaipal Singh Gulati ("Informant No. 2") under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ("Act") against the Union of India through the Secretary, Information & Broadcasting ("OP-1"); the State of Chhattisgarh through its Principal Secretary, Home Department ("OP-2"); the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise Commissionerate ("OP-3"); the Commissioner, Commercial Tax GST, Government of Chhattisgarh ("OP-4"); Taranjeet Singh Hora ("OP-5"); Gurucharan Singh Hora ("OP-6"); M/s Grand Vision Television Network ("OP-7"); M/s Star Television ("OP-8"); and M/s Zee Television ("OP-9") (hereinafter OP-1 to OP-9 are collectively referred to as the "Opposite Parties/OPs"), alleging, inter alia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally, it has been stated in the Information that in the year 2020, a similar method was used to unlawfully and coercively seize the shares of Informant-1's partners, resulting in the expropriation of nearly Rs. Two crore from M/s Vande Mataram Cable TV Network through fraudulent financial practices. This was achieved by diverting all revenue to per- sonal business accounts while deliberately evading GST and other tax obligations. 7. The Informants have further alleged that OP-5 and OP-6 have also influenced OP-8 and OP-9 to disrupt the signal supply and withhold the pending carriage charges to the Cable TV MSO like Vande Mataram Cable TV Network (Informant-1) & Paynet Broad Band Services. As a result, these operators are suffering a se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parties from disrupting the informant's cable TV Multi-System Operations business in the Korba District, State of Chhattisgarh, in any manner. 12. The Commission considered the material available on record in its ordinary meeting held on 04.09.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course. 13. Having considered the averments and allegations made in the Information, the Commission observes that the core issue raised by the Informants arises from the purported unlawful seizure of shares and the monopolization of the cable TV network business in Chhattisgarh by the Opposite Parties (OP-5, OP-6, and OP-7), as detailed hereinabove. 14. As stated in the information, the Commission notes that Informant-1 is registered as a Multi S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, for the applicability of Section 4 of the Act and the examination of contravention thereof, it may be axiomatic to define a relevant market and assess the dominance of the entity alleged to be abusing its dominant position in such market. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the abuses as alleged, the Commission does not find it imperative to define a precise relevant market in the instant matter. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Informants have alleged violation of Section 4 of the Act against all the OPs. The Commission observes that it is a settled position that the provisions of the Act do not provide for inquiry into the cases of joint/collective dominance. Accordingly, no ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
