NANDU AHUJA Vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY our order dated 24.7.2013 we had dismissed the appeals as they are without merits. We now give the reasons. This judgment shall govern Appeal No. 01/2012; Appeal No. 02/2012 and Appeal No. 03/2012 against the common order passed by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as the TCI') on 25.10.2011. By this common order all the three appellants, who have filed these separate appeals, were fined for Rs. 25,000/ - each holding that they had committed an offence under Section 43 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) SINCE the facts are common and the impugned order passed by the CCI is also common, we are disposing of these appeals by this common order. We shall take the facts in Appeal No. 1 of 2012 -Nandu Ahuja. The facts in the other two appeals are mostly identical.

(3.) IT was further alleged that UPDF vide their notice dated 27.3.2009 had instructed all producers and distributors including those who were not the members of the UPDF not to release any new film to the members of the informant for the purposes of exhibition at the multiplexes operated by the members of the informant. The informant had also brought to the notice that there was a conflict between the producers/distributors and the members of the informant on the issue of revenue sharing ratio. It was further alleged that since early 2009 the producers/distributors started demanding the change of that ratio and in the process claimed unreasonable share of 50% of the collection as against old share of 40% to 44%. It was pointed out that there were negotiations which failed and the other two organizations AMPTPP and FTPGI had issued notice dated 9.5.2009 to their respective members to comply with the notice dated 27.3.2009 issued by UPDF and not to release any film in multiplexes. In the said notice a warning was given that in case of failure to comply with the instruction given in the notice there would be likelihood of life -time suspension and disciplinary action. It was further alleged that UPDF and other association had clearly acted in concert to fix the prices and had infringed Section 3(3)(a) of the Act. They had also violated Section 3(3)(b) and Section 3(3)(c) of the Act.