ANAND THEATRE Vs. CENTRAL CIRCUIT CINE ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint under Section 10 -B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by M/s. Anand Theatre, Hanumangarh through its five partners viz., Shri Ram Krishan Bihani, Smt. Nathi Devi, Shri Sushil Kumar Bihani, Shri Jaideep Kumar and Shri Basant Kumar Bihani (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) against the Central Circuit Cine Association, Raisar Plaza Bhawan, Indira Market, Jaipur -302001 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). In the complaint, it has been primarily alleged the violation of Section 2(i) of the Act and the violation of Article 19(g), 301,305,306 of the Constitution of India. It has been stated in the complaint that the applicant theatre was constituted on 28.5.1977 and registered as a partnership firm and from the year 1978 a licence for exhibiting motion pictures under the provisions of Rajasthan Cinematograph Act was granted. The respondent, which is a non -trading company, was registered under Section 25 of Indian Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1987 and the main functions are to regulate the admission of membership and registration of pictures within different regions. According to the applicants in the film trade producers appoint distributors as exclusive agent for commercial distribution and exhibition of pictures called contracted territory and the said distributors give the film for exhibition in cinema houses, who being the sole or exclusive agent for a specified territory charges unreasonable amount or otherwise by preventing competition, control the supply or distribution of films to the exhibition.

(2.) THE applicants have admitted that because of their failure to pay the amount to the various distributors for the films received by them as many as 21 ex parte awards amounting to Rs. 2,49,480/ - alongwith two disputed cases were made against them. THE contention of the applicants in this regard is that the inability to make the payment was basically because the applicants did not receive the amount from the hirer of the cinema hall. THEreafter the respondent on 2.7.1992 informed the applicants that the provisional membership granted to them on 9.6.1992 stood cancelled with immediate effect and the respondent also communicated the same to its members directing the members not to supply pictures to or enter with contract with the applicants for supply of pictures else they will be liable to pay contravention penalty at the rate of Rs. 2,500/ - per violation. THE applicants for this purpose have relied upon Annexure 'C' to the complaint which is a letter dated 2.7.1992 of the respondent and which we feel it appropriate to reproduce the extracts of the same:

(3.) THE complaint is silent to the effect that what the applicants have done from 2.7.1992 to 11.1.1994 and the inference can only be drawn that the applicants have not taken any concrete steps in between for a period of more than VA. years, otherwise they would have stated so in their complaint. However, the letter dated 11.1.1994 (Annexure 'D' of the complaint) of the applicants, which is addressed to the respondent, stated that their membership stands ceased U/A 12(f) since 14th August, 1993, and approximately awards of Rs. 2,50,000/ - have been adjudicated against them. THEy intended to satisfy all the pending awards and earnestly request for grant of exemption U/R 67(b) so as to enable to liquidate awards. THE applicants informed that they can remit instalments of Rs. 10,000/ - per month. THE respondent fairly issued an exemption certificate upto 12.2.1994. However, the respondent on 11.2.1994 issued a caution to its members that if any member shall deal with the defaulting members including the applicants and supply them pictures for screening, he will be liable to pay contravention penalty shall be determined by the committee. Further on 11.3.1994 the respondent issued caution and informed about the persons/parties to whom the exemption certificates have been renewed and to whom the exemption certificates have not been granted. THE respondent has again reiterated about the penalty clause in terms of their letter dated 11.2.1994.