LGM NETWORK Vs. STAR INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Commission under Sections 36B(A) and 10A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondents for indulging in the unfair and restrictive trade practices under Sec. 36A of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Cable Television Network under the Cable Television (Regulation) Act, 1995 in the city of Patiala in Punjab State and is being run as partnership firm. It is stated to be carrying on the business of providing multi-services such as providing cable and satellite television signal of Star TV, Sony TV, Zee TV, ESPN channel, Discovery Channel etc., internet services and other emerging technologies and services to the consumers. The respondents 1 to 3 are the companies which are allegedly supplying the 'Pay Channels' on cost to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 is the distribution agent for respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 5 is the Cable TV Network controlling about 90% viewer ship of the cable TV in Patiala, State of Punjab. The petitioner has impugned the alleged 'monopolistic trade practice' as well as 'unfair trade practice' as indulged in by the respondents and it is submitted that prima facie case is made out and to establish the same an inquiry may be initiated. The petitioner negotiated the terms and conditions with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and executed an agreement in respect of the services to be provided. It is next submitted that the petitioner was making payments to the respondents and in this regard some of the receipts and copies of the Demand Drafts have been attached to the complaint. The following amounts were stated to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_19_CPJ3_2003_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The genesis of the complaint against the respondent is elaborately stated in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the complaint which may be referred to as below :

(3.) The petitioner has next submitted that respondent No. 5 being the largest Network of Cable TV in the city of Patiala in the Punjab State effectively controlling 90% of the Cable TV market in Patiala, is in a position to exercise influence on the Channel networks i.e. Star TV, Set India, ESPN etc. and have actively colluded to oust the petitioner from its business and thereby retaining the monopolistic control of the business of the area. In view of the above averments the petitioner has alleged the following loss and injury due to the conduct of the respondents.