COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs. CO ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF ARTIST AND TECHNICIANS OF WEST BENGAL FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is preferred by the Competition Commission of India seeking certain clarifications with regard to the judgment dated 07.03.2017 rendered in this appeal. The Competition Commission was concerned with the information received in respect of the agreement which was entered into between Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technicians of W.B. Film and Television and it was to be decided as to whether such an agreement was indeed competitive agreement within the meaning of Section 3(3)(b). Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) deals with those agreements which limits or controls production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or provision of services. In that context the law on the aspect of 'relevant market' has also been discussed. It may be mentioned that though the Competition Commission had found the agreement to be anti-competitive, the Appellate Tribunal had upset the order of the Competition Commission, against which the Appeal was preferred by the Competition Commission of India. This Court has restored the order of the Competition Commission of India thereby setting aside the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. While doing so, the question of 'relevant market', was also considered and in para 30 of the judgment, the following question was formulated:

(2.) In the present application filed by the Competition Commission of India it is contended that an impression is given that the question of relevant market has to be determined in all types of cases under Section 3 of the Competition Act, which may not be the correct position. We find that our judgment dated 07.03.2017 needs some clarification in this behalf, which we hereby give in the following manner:

(3.) As mentioned above, the submission of the applicant is that though paragraph 8 of the judgment rightly records that anti-competition agreements listed under Section 3(3) are per se treated as adversely affecting the competition to an appreciable extent, the aforesaid reading of the issue in respect of 'relevant market' may give an impression that there is also a necessity to delineate relevant market in all such cases. We clarify that such delineation is not mandatory in terms of the statutory scheme of the Act, particularly having regard to the statutory presumption contained in Section 3 of the Act itself.