EASTERN INDIA MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION EIMPA HOUSE Vs. MANJU THARAD, PROPRIETRESS M/S MANORANJAN FILMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE appellants have challenged order passed by the Competition Commission of India ('CCI' hereinafter) whereby all the appellants were imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - per day under Section 43 of The Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter the 'Act'). It was further provided that if the information was not supplied within 30 days, the penalty was to be Rs. 50,000/ - per day for the next 30 days and Rs. 1,00,000/ - per day thereafter, till penalty amount culminates to Rs. 1.00 crore. By the order dated 3rd May, 2012 this order was stayed. Short factual background will not be out of place. One Ms. Manju Tharad, respondent No. 1 herein approached the Commission under Section 19 of the Act with an information. This was because of the action taken against her by Eastern India Motion Picture Association, the first appellant herein. It so happened that an application was filed on 29.09.2010 for registration of the title of the film 'Golapi Akhon Bilete' by Ms. Manju Tharad, who was the Proprietress of M/s. Manoranjan Films, 92 -B Chittaranjan Avenue, 2nd Floor Kolkata. On the basis of this application, registration and distribution rights of the said film for 10 years were awarded in favour of Ms. Manju Tharad/M/s. Manoranjan Films as distributors. Subsequently, it was revealed that M/s. Manoranjan Films/Ms. Manju Tharad, respondent No. 1 was not described as producer, but infact one Sayed Wahidul Hassan of United Kingdom was described as producer of the film. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 admitted that the film registered by them was actually an 'imported film' produced in U.K. and neither M/s. Manoranjan Films/Ms. Manju Tharad had purchased the negative rights of the film nor they had the right to import the film into India. On this basis, an action was taken against Ms. Manju Tharad by the first appellant because of which she approached the CCI under Section 19.

(2.) THE matter was referred to the Director General for Investigation under Section 26 (1) of the Act and the Director General in his report observed that the action taken by the appellant No. 1 of which the other appellants are the office bearers was not anti -competitive or in violation of Section 3 of the Act. The CCI however directed the appellants to appear before the Commission on 03.11.2012 for making submissions. A reply was submitted by the appellant's association to the notice received highlighting that the Director General had not found any breach of any of the provisions of the Act by the appellant.

(3.) HOWEVER , it was observed by the CCI that despite repeated opportunities and the show -cause notice, the office bearers of the appellant's association did not file annual account statement for the last three years of their individual or company/enterprise which they represent till date and in view of this conduct, the CCI inflicted penalty as indicated above. The appeal is predominantly against the aforementioned order.