ANAND THEATRE Vs. CENTRAL CIRCUIT CINE ASSOCIATION JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.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 Sec.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 Sec.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: "sub: Cancellation of Provisional Membership granted to you on 9.6.1992. Dear Sir, in connection to above subject we are to inform you that provisional membership granted to you on 9.6.1992 stands cancelled with immediate effect since you have failed to satisfy awards within stipulated time as per our letter No.197 dated 12.6.1992 which please note. "

(3.) The perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly shows that the contents of para 7 of the complaint are not the same and we do not know from where the applicants have reproduced the averments which are not in conformity with the aforesaid letter. The said letter of the respondent clearly stated that the applicants have failed to satisfy the awards within the stipulated period and only on that account the respondent association has cancelled the provisional membership.