CASE LAWS ON COMPETIOTION ACT

1. INDIAN MOTION PICTURE PRODUCER ASSOCIATION Vs FEDERATION OF WESTERN INDIA

CINEMA EMP AND OTHRS AIR 2017 CASE.

 Indian motion picture producers association, hereby termed as 'Informant' field under section
19(1)(a) of competition commission of India ( CCI) against Western Indian cinema employees
and its affiliates alleging contravention of provisions section 3 & 4 of the Act.

 Informant registered under companies act 2013 as well as under cooperative societies act
1918 members of ‘Informant' are engaged in business of production of firms and daily
programes for television channels.

 Western Indian cinema employees and others hereby termed as ‘opposition cop' is federation
different craft associations with the film industry in western India ( Mumbai based on TV
industries) and is registered under provisions of trade union act 1962.

 ‘Informant’ alleged that members of ‘opposition' are forcing the members of 'Informant’ to
accept the services of craft mans whose members of associated with ‘opposition crop’ and its
affiliates OP's ( b-28).

 (OP's) dictating their terms to 'Informant’ and monopolizing the Film production business
without their consent, has the producer (Informant) is entitled to produce any Salim or
program or whatsoever, does the portion is compiled to do what (OP's) dictates which is
contrary to what provision of CCI act say.

 Informant alleged that (OP's) were showing anti-competitive behaviour with regard to
issurance of non cooperative directives and imposition of compulsory holidays on certain
occasion through directives staling non payments of dues to its members.

 Based on discussion, analysis of evidence the commission viewed that OP 1 and OP 2

contravened section 3(3)b , section 3(3) c of the act and OP's b-28 contravened section 3(3)b
of the act.

 As far as the allegation made under section 4 the commission serves that no material
whatsoever was brought on record by the informant to suggest that OP’s are engaged in any
economic activity, In order to be considered enterprise for the purpose of assessment of
dominance under the provision of section 4 of the acts.

 With respect to allegation of non paying of wages leading to logs of work for informant, the
CCI termed it as not anti competitive and dismissed the case against OP's .
CASE LAWS ON COMPETIOTION ACT

2. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA- 11467 AIR 2018.

 On 17 July 2018, the Delhi HC judgement in respect of a write petition filed before it by cadd
systems and services private limited ( petitioner). The petition challenged two orders of the
CCI for contravention of the law laid down by a division bench of Delhi HC in in Mahindra and
Mahindra Ltd and ORS. V. competition commission of India and ANR.( W.P.(C) 1146 7/2018
and connected matters)(Mahindra judgement).

 The Mahindra judgement was passed by a division bench of Delhi HC in 2018 directing the CCI
and Central Government to ensure the presence and participation of a judicial member at all
times while passing adjudicatory orders ( especially final orders) by the CCI. The Mahindra
judgement also directed the central government to take expediters steps to fill all existing
vacancies in the CCI, within 6 months from the date of the pronouncement of the judgement.
This briefly created and ambiguity on the functioning and procedural aspects of CCI amongst
practitioners and parties alike.

BACKGROUND

 The Delhi HC's present judgement emanates from a challenge to CCI orders, in Nagrik Chetna
Manch V. SAAR IT resources private limited and ORS. (case number. 12 of 2017) dated 23
April 2019 and 8 may 2019 (collectively referred to as CCI orders) , which were passed without
the presence of a judicial member.

 The petitioner challenged the CCI orders stating that the specific directors in the Mahindra
judgement had been flouted and ignored by the CCI as it passed the orders without the
presence of a judicial member.

 Contentions of the parties- The petitioner’s primary argument was that the CCI orders were
adjudicatory in nature and hence the presence of a judicial member was mandatory as per
the law.

 In response to the contentions of the petitioner, the CCI argued that section 15 of the
competition act, 2002(Act), states that no act or proceedings of the CCI would be invalid by
reason of any vacancy or any defect in it constitution and in effects provides a safe harbour to
orders passed by the CCI in the absence of a judicial member. In any event, the central
government had accepted the decision in the Mahindra judgement and issued a circular,
inviting application’s from persons with requisite qualifications for appointment as a judicial
member of CCI.

 In respect of the ‘appointment and participation of judicial members' in a tribunal, the CCI
also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court of India [1] has clarified that till such time a
reconstitution of the tribunal does not take place arising from a retirement of a member from
the legal field, the existing tribunal will decide all the cases. Thus, the CCI concluded the
CASE LAWS ON COMPETIOTION ACT

directions in the Mahindra judgement cannot be read to be interdicting the functioning of

the CCI pending such appointment.

 Findings of the court- The Delhi HC observed that the Mahindra judgement, in line with the
previous judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in utility users welfare
association, [2] required the presence of a judicial member but did not preclude the CCI from
performing it adjudicatory function aunties much time the judicial member was appointed by
the central government. The Delhi HC has agreed with the CCI that section 15 of the Act
amply clarifies that no at or proceedings of the CCI would be invalid by reason of any vacancy
or any defect in its construction.

 Implications- The present judgement holds significance as it resolves the ambiguities

surrounding the directions passed in the Mahindra judgement, particularly, in relation to the
functioning of the CCI until the appointment of judicial members.

 The observations of the Delhi HC suggest that courts in India are inclined to give importance
to material aspects over procedural issues, as long as due process and the rights of defence
are not compromised, specifically on the issues being dealt by regulators such as the CCI.
CASE LAWS ON COMPETIOTION ACT