Respondent Memorial Team 13

`T-13
7TH C.L. AGARWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In the Matter of:
AMP & ASSOCIATION……........................................................................APPELLANT
v.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (CCI)………………………RESPONDENT
PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7th C. L. AGRAWAL MEMORIAL MOOT COURTCOMPETITION,2023
T-13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 BOOKS REFERRED
 STATUTES
 ARTICLES AND LEGAL JOURNALS
 TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
 LEGAL DATABASE
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 PRAYER
2
T-13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
CCI COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INIDA
COI Constitution of India
para Paragraph
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AIR All India Reporters
UOI Union of India
Eds. Edition
Anr. Another
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Ors. Others
No. Number
V./VS Versus
& And
P. Page
SLP Special Leave Petition
Hon’ble Honourable
IT Act Information Technology Act
COI Constitution of India
AAEC Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition
3
T-13
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
1. Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd, (2019) 2 SCC 521

2. Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, (2018) 8 SCC 613
3. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors, (2005) 4 SC
4. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India ,(1985) AIR 515
5. Indian Bennett Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India 1973 AIR 106
6. Indian Broadcasting Foundation v. Union of India
7. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors
8. Excel Crop Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Another.
9. CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors,. (2014) 5 SCC 637
10. Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 1
11. CCI v. Coordination Committee of Artists & Technicians of W.B. Film & Television,
(2017)5 SCC 17
12. CCI v. Coordinator Committee of Artists and Technician s of WB Film and Television,
AIR 2017 SC 1449.
13. Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 Comp LR 1009 (CCI).
14. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. v. Commission, (1979) ECR 461.
15. Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 8 SCC
705
16. Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Ltd Haryana Urban Development Authority
Department of Town and Country
17. Global Tax Free Traders v. William Grant & Sons Limited, 2015 Comp LR 503
(CompAT)
18. HMM Ltd v. Director General, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
Commission, (1998) 6 SCC 485.
19. Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., (1977) 1 SCC 635
20. Competition Commission of India (CCI) v. Indian Council of Medical Research
21. Competition Commission of India v. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2016) 4 SCC 703
STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of India,1950

2. Competition Commission of India, 2007
3. Competition Commission of India Regulation 2009
DATA BASE REFERED:
4
T-13
5
T-13
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under article 136 of the
constitution:
136. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
The special leave petition has been admitted as a civil appeal under section 53T of the
Competition Act 1
1
Article 136 in The Constitution Of India 1949
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or
order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating
to the Armed Forces
6
T-13
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 8th January 2017, The BRT assigned the dubbing and telecasting rights of Jack and Jill serial
to the Magnum TV Productions India Ltd, Bangalore (MTVPIL). Additionally, the MTVPIL was
too required to take necessary measures to ensure this TV serial’s telecasting by the satellites of
the locally operating TV Channels from 26th January 2017 to 30th September, 2019.
2. As per terms of the Agreement with the BRT, the MTVPIL itself dubbed the Jack an Jill serial
in Bangla language. On 18th January, 2017, It appointed Hatt Video Solutions, Mumbai (HVS)
as its business partner to ensure effective telecasting of Bangla dubbed Jack and Jill serial by
different TV Channels in the potential market.
3. On 20th January 2017, HVS concluded agreements with three locally functional TV Channels;
namely, Channel 10 Bangla, NDTV Bangla and Bangla TV to ensure the effective telecast of the
serial by their satellites during the period of 26th January 2017 to 30th Sept. 2019.
4. .On 24th January 2017, all three TV Channels circulated the advertisements in various Bangla
language Newspapers informing the general public that the Bangla dubbed version of the Jack
and Jill Hindi TV serial will be telecasted at different time slots on their respective TV Channels
from 26th January 2017 to 30th September 2019.
5. Considering this telecast against their economic interest, the Adhikari Media Productions ,
Kolkata (AMP) and the Association of Film and TV Artists of West Bengal (Association)
launched a wide spread violent agitation all across the State of West Bengal to prevent
aforementioned TV Channels from telecasting the Bangla dubbed Jack and Jill serial.
6. On March 18th 2017, the Office of Channel 10 Bangla received a letter from Association. This
letter contained a warning to the channel to be ready to face dire consequences if the dubbed Jack
and Jill serial would be telecasted in the West Bengal. Additionally, the Association also
threatened the Channel that it will conduct violent protests throughout the State if this telecast
could not be stopped immediately.
7. NDTV Bangla and Bangla TV also received the similar warning letters from AMP and
Association. Letters containing the similar threatening contents were too received by MTVPIL
and HVS at their Office by Post on 20th March, 2017. Consequently, the telecast of the Bangla
dubbed Jack and Jill serial was stopped by all the Channels on March 22, 2017.
8. The gist of all warning letters may be understood as raising a sufficient apprehension that instant
violent protests were bound to take place by the active involvement of AMP and Association
which were pretending to be taking these pressurizing measures to protect the West Bengal Film
and TV Industry. The exercises undertaken, statements made or preparations done by AMP and
Association were reflecting the impression of the formation of some type of the Cartel or even of
a Bid Rigging Exercise to stop the telecast of this TV serial throughout the State of West Bengal.
9. After getting information about these developments and thinking that the said Channels had
succumbed to the pressure of AMP and Association, the BRT reported all the facts to the
Competition Commission of India (CCI) on 10th April, 2017. In its Complaint, the BRT prayed
to the CCI to take appropriate action.
7
T-13
10. In its Complaint, the BRT mainly stated that the acts and omissions on the part of AMP and
Association were in direct violation to the Sections 3, 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 as the same
being Anti-Competitive Agreements having appreciable adverse effect (AAE) on the free
competition in the relevant market. Consequently, the AMP and Association were abusing their
dominance in the market by indulging in such practices which had resulted in denial of free
access of dubbed Jack and Jill serial in the relevant market.
11. Additionally, it also prayed to give immediate relief by issuing necessary directions to the
Respondents to stop threatening the violence so that such Anti-competitive Arrangements and
consequent abuse of dominant position may be countered effectively. It also prayed the CCI to
take all necessary measures to provide such suitable environment which would best fit to the
effective telecast of the Bangla dubbed Jack and Jill TV serial all across the available market.
12. On receiving the information and making a prima facie opinion that the acts and omissions on
the part of the AMP and Association have contravened the said provisions of the Act, the CCI
referred the matter to the Director General (DG) for a detailed investigation on 10th July, 2017.
13. In its Report, the DG concluded that the facts reported by the BRT were correct and the acts and
omissions on the part of Respondents have actually amounted to the contravention of the said
sections of the Competition Act 2002.Resultantly, the CCI formed the opinion that actions of the
Respondents were anti-competitive in nature and resulted in the abuse of dominant position in
the relevant market of the West Bengal. Hence, the Respondents were liable for the violation of
the relevant provisions of the said Act.
14. On 15th November, 2017, the CCI ordered to the Respondents to discontinue all such practices
which were pressurizing the Channels to stop the telecast of dubbed Jack and Jill serial and stop
abusing their dominant position. Additionally, it also ordered the imposition of Fine of Rs. 100
Crore on the Respondents.
15. In Appeal, the Respondents approached to the Competition Appellate Tribunal on 15th
December 2017(Now the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) because the
powers and functions of Competition Appellate Tribunal have been takenover by the NCLAT
from May 26, 2017). But in its decision on 14th May 2018, the NCLAT maintained the Original
Order passed by the CCI on 15th November, 2017.
16. On 20th July 2018, the AMP and Association have filed Second Appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court praying for quashing the order and also, requesting to secure any other
appropriate remedy.
8
T-13
9
T-13
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Second Appeal filed before the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the
Act is maintainable? And whether the BRT India Ltd. Mumbai has locus-standi to lodge
the Complaint in the present matter?
2. Whether the BRT India Ltd., Mumbai has the locus-standi to lodge the Complaint in the
present matter?
3. Whether the original Order made by the CCI on 15th November, 2017 and sustained by
the NCLAT in its decision on 14th May 2018 was made within the appropriate
competence?
4. Whether the Order made by CCI and sustained by the NCLAT has caused any injustice
to the Appellants? If yes, then;
a. Whether the acts and omissions on the part of AMP and Association were sufficient
to conclude that they entered in any Anti-competitive Agreement or have abused
their dominant position in the Relevant Market?
b. Whether the DG proceeded validly within the due competence in concluding that
these were solely the acts/omissions/practices of respondents that have caused the
unfair pressure and obstructed the telecast of Jack and Jill Serial and resultantly the
TV Channels faced the damages?
c. Whether the CCI acted rightly in concluding that the Relevant Market in the present
case was the Film and TV Industry of State of West Bengal and was not located on
Pan India basis?
10
T-13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The Second Appeal filed by the Respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
is not maintainable under sec.53 T of Competition Act, 2002 as it was filed after
the period of sixty days. The Supreme Court has held that the period of sixty
days is mandatory and the appeal should be filed within the prescribed period of
sixty days. The Court further held that the power of the Supreme Court to
entertain an appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 is not
restricted to the matters relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the
Competition Act, 2002.
2. BRT India Ltd. Mumbai has the locus standi to lodge a complaint in the Supreme Court
under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, the Telecasting and Re-Broadcasting Act,
1995 and the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. This is due to the
infringement of its right to freedom of speech and expression, and the anti-competitive
practices of AMP & Assoc. which have caused an appreciable adverse effect on
competition in India.
3. The CCI and NCLAT passed an order in favour of the respondent in the case of anti-
competitive agreement and abuse of dominant position by AMP & Association. The
order was made on the basis of facts and investigation conducted by the tribunal. The
acts and omissions of AMP and Association were sufficient to conclude that they
entered into an anti-competitive agreement or abused their dominant position in the
relevant market. Hence, the order made by the CCI and the NCLAT were within the
appropriate competence.
4.
(i) AMP and Association entered into an anti-competitive agreement and abused
their dominant position in the relevant market by preventing the telecast of the
dubbed Jack and Jill serial. This was in violation of Section 3 and 4 of the
Competition Act, 2002. The agreement caused an appreciable adverse effect on
competition in India and was an abuse of their dominant position.
11
T-13
(ii) The DG has concluded that the acts and omissions on the part of Respondents
have contravened the said provisions of the Act, as the same being Anti-
Competitive Agreements having AAE on the free competition in the relevant
market. The DG has also concluded that the Respondents have abused their
dominant position in the market by indulging in such practices which have
resulted in denial of free access of dubbed Jack and Jill serial in the relevant
market. The Supreme Court has upheld the principles of competition law and
the need to protect competition and the relevant markets. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the DG has proceeded validly within the due competence in
concluding that these were solely the acts/omissions/practices of respondents
that have caused the unfair pressure and obstructed the telecast of Jack and Jill
Serial and resultantly the TV Channels faced the damages.
(iii) The CCI acted rightly in concluding that the relevant market in the present case
was the Film and TV Industry of State of West Bengal and not located on a Pan
India basis. This was based on the principles of market definition in Competition
Law, which requires a consideration of the relevant geographic and product
market in order to determine the relevant market. The relevant market is the
market for the production and telecasting of the Bangla dubbed version of the
Jack and Jill Hindi television serial, and the relevant geographic location is the
state of West Bengal. The Order made by CCI and sustained by the NCLAT has
not caused any injustice to the Appellants.
12
T-13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the Second Appeal filed before the Supreme Court under Section 53T of the Act is
maintainable? And whether the BRT India Ltd. Mumbai has locus-standi to lodge the
Complaint in the present matter?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Second Appeal filed before the
Supreme Court of India under Section 53T1 of the Competition Act is not maintainable.
According to Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002, any person aggrieved by an order of
the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) may file an appeal to the Supreme
Court within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order of the
NCLAT.
In the present matter, AMP & Assoc. appealed on 20th July, 2018 after sixty-seven days
which was due date as per sec.53T. Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied
that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said
period, allow it to be filed after the expiry of the said period of sixty day but AMP & Assoc.
do not have sufficient reason why the respondent failed to appeal within the time.
In the case of Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd2., the Supreme Court
held that the period of sixty days is mandatory and the appeal should be filed within the
prescribed period of sixty days. The Court further held that the period of sixty days is not
extendable by the Court and the appeal filed after the period of sixty days is not
maintainable.
The Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Competition Commission of India v.
Steel Authority of India Ltd3. that an appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002
is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India. The Court held that the language of
Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 is clear and unambiguous and it does not contain
any restriction or limitation on the powers of the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal and
the power of the Supreme Court to entertain an appeal under Section 53T of the Competition
1
Appeal to Supreme Court 53T. The Central Government or any State Government or the Commission or any
statutory authority or any local authority or any enterprise or any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the
Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the
decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to them;
2
Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd, (2019) 2 SCC 521
3
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, (2018) 8 SCC 613
13
T-13
Act, 2002 is not restricted to the matters relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the
Competition Act, 2002. Hence, Second Appeal filed by the Respondent before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court is not maintainable under sec.53 T of Competition Act, 2002.
2. Whether the BRT India Ltd., Mumbai has the locus-standi to lodge the Complaint in the
present matter?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the BRT India Ltd., Mumbai has
the locus-standi to lodge the complaint in the present matter between CCI and AMP &
Assoc. under Article 32 of the COI which give right to individuals to move to the Supreme
Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been 'unduly deprived'.
In the present matter the rights of the BRT India Ltd. has been deprived by the Appellant.
The Respondent can file a complaint in the Supreme Court as it serial Jack & Jill telecast has
been stopped by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the COI. The
BRT India Ltd, Mumbai and other partners who were in agreement for production4,
telecasting and dubbing for the serial in Bangla language and the other parties5 involved in
the agreement right have been infringed by the AMP & Assoc.
The BRT India Ltd. can lodge a complaint in the Supreme Court under Article 19(1) of the
Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. This
right includes the right to telecast or broadcast any material or content. The BRT India Ltd.
can also lodge a complaint under the Telecasting and Re-Broadcasting Act, 1995. This Act
provides for the regulation of telecasting and re-broadcasting of programs and
advertisements. It also provides for the regulation of the content of programs and
advertisements. The Act also provides for the establishment of a Telecasting Authority to
regulate and monitor the telecasting and re-broadcasting of programs and advertisements.
The BRT India Ltd. can also lodge a complaint under the Cable Television Networks
(Regulation) Act, 1995. This Act provides for the regulation of cable television networks and
the content of programs and advertisements. The Act also provides for the establishment of a
Cable Television Authority 6to regulate and monitor the cable television networks.
In case of Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P (2023), the SC held that the Fundamental Rights
under article 19 of the Constitution of India can be even enforced against persons other than
the State or its instrumentalities.
BRT India Ltd. Mumbai has locus standi to lodge the complaint in the present matter in
Supreme Court under Article 19(1)7. BRT India Ltd. Mumbai, as the producer of the TV
Serial, Jack and Jill, has the right to seek protection of its work from anti-competitive
practices of other parties. Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to produce, perform, or
communicate any work or art, or even to exhibit it in public. Therefore, BRT India Ltd.
Mumbai has the right to complain against any infringement of its right to freedom of
4
Moot Preposition Para 2
5
Moot Proposition, Para 3, 4.
6
Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors, (2005) 4 SCC649
7
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India ,(1985) AIR 515
14
T-13
expression through its TV Serial, Jack and Jill. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, 1969 and the Competition Act, 2002 are the two Parliamentary Bills which
provide legal protection to producers of works of art and literature against anti-competitive
practices. Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits any agreement between
enterprises or persons which causes an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 prohibits abuse of dominant position by an enterprise
in the relevant market. In the present case, the acts and omissions of AMP and Association
amount to anti-competitive agreement and abuse of dominant position in the relevant market.
Therefore, BRT India Ltd. Mumbai has a valid locus standi to lodge the complaint in the
Supreme Court against the anti-competitive practices of AMP and Association. In the case of
Bennett Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India8, the Supreme Court held that the right to
freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to produce films, serials and other
works of art and literature. The Court also held that the right to freedom of expression is not
absolute and must be exercised with due regard to public order, morality and interests of
other persons.
In the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court held that the
stoppage of serial telecasts was a violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India9. The Court also held that the
stoppage of serial telecasts was a violation of the right to carry on trade or business
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)10 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the
Union of India to take appropriate action to ensure that the serial telecasts were resumed.
In the case of Indian Broadcasting Foundation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held
that the Telecasting Act is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression
and is not in violation of Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. The court also held that the
Telecasting Act is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression and is
not in violation of Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The BRT India Ltd. can lodge a complaint in the Supreme Court under the Telecasting Act,
1995.Under this Act, the Central Government has the power to make rules for the regulation
of telecasting services. The BRT India Ltd. can file a complaint in the Supreme Court under
the Telecasting Act, 1995.In the case of Indian Broadcasting Foundation v. Union of India
(2005) 8 SCC 713, the Supreme Court held that the rules made under the Telecasting Act,
1995 are binding on all “persons” and any violation of the rules will be punishable under the
Act. Therefore, in the present case, BRT India Ltd. Mumbai has the right to seek protection
of its work, Jack and Jill, from anti-competitive practices of AMP and Association. It has
valid locus standi to lodge the complaint in the Supreme Court under Article 19(1) of the
Constitution of India.
8
Indian Bennett Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India 1973 AIR 106
9
Indian Broadcasting Foundation v. Union of India
10
Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors
15
T-13
3. Whether the original Order made by the CCI on 15th November, 2017 and sustained by
the NCLAT in its decision on 14th May 2018 was made within the appropriate
competence?
It is humbly submitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court that decision passed by CCI and
sustained by NCLAT was within appropriate competence. On 10th April 2017, case was
reported by the BRT India Ltd. Mumbai to the Competition Commission of India under the
violation section 3,4 of the CCI, 2002 against AMP & Association and requested to take
appropriate actions for the same.
CCI made its prima facie opinion within two months as per the (General) Regulation 16(2)
of CCI ,2009 which states that on the existence of prima facie opinion in cases of anti-
competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position, Commission should record along
with its opinion after receiving information within sixty-days.
In the instant case,on 10th July 2017, BRT India Ltd. filed as complaint against the AMP &
Assoc. regarding the Anti-competitive Agreement or have abused their dominant position in
the relevant market11. Hence, Director General may commence its investigation under section
2612 of the Act read with (General) Regulation 18(2) of CCI ,2009.
In the present case, DG took more than sixty days for the proper investigation in this case
against Appellant who was involved in Anti-Competitive Agreements with direct violation to
section 3,4 of the Competition Act,2002 having AAE on the competition in the relevant
market13.
On 15thdecember,2017, the Appellant approached the NCLAT 14after one months of CCI ‘s
order in its appeal as per the section 410 of the Companies Act,2013.
NCLAT gave order in favor of the respondent which was similar to as per the facts
mentioned by the complainant on 10th April.15 along with the investigation conducted by the
tribunal.
The Appellant was involved in anti- competitive agreement as per section 3(1) and 2(d) of
Competition Act,2002 and under section 4(1) and 4(2)(e), AMP and Assoc. was abusing its
power in the relevant market of the State of West Bengal. One can clearly view that
prohibition of serial Jack and Jill on the television in the state of West Bengal prevented the
competing parties in pursuing their commercial activities. Than it was observed by the CCI
on the basis of facts and gave perfect order as in the name of protection of the language
goes against the competition ,depriving the consumers to exercise their choice and actions of
the Appellant caused the harm to the consumers and also to the channels who were being
threatened to stopped the telecast of the serial, amounted the restricting its commercial
exploitation of all the parties involved in agreement with BRT India Ltd. under section 2(b)
which was unjustified16.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Steel
11
Moot Preposition Para 12
12
News Broadcasting & Digital Association vs Alphabet, Inc. and others
13
Relevant market means the market which may be determined by the Commission with reference to the relevant
product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to both the markets
14
Excel Crop Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India & Another.
15
Moot Preposition Para 11 & 12.
16
Moot Preposition ,Para 2,3 & 4.
16
T-13
Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. 17held that an agreement between two or more enterprises or
persons which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition
within India is an anti-competitive agreement
The CCI ordered the AMP & Assoc. to discontinue all its anti-competitive activities which
were pressurizing channels to stop its business. Additionally, according to the order fine
was imposed of Rs.100 crore.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel
Ltd. & Ors.18 held that the abuse of dominant position by an enterprise or group of
enterprises or persons in a relevant market in India, in any manner, is prohibited. In the
present case, the acts and omissions of AMP and Association were sufficient to conclude that
they entered into an anti-competitive agreement or abused their dominant position in the
relevant market and geographical relevant market. The AMP and Association were jointly
engaged in pressurizing the said Channels to stop the telecast of Bangla dubbed Jack and Jill
serial in the West Bengal. This act of pressurizing the Channels to stop the telecast of the
serial was an anti-competitive agreement as it was likely to cause an appreciable adverse
effect on competition within India.
Furthermore, the AMP and Association were also claiming to be safeguarding a long
established business practice of the media industry of the State of West Bengal and it was an
abuse of dominant position as it was likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on
competition within India19.
Therefore, the acts and omissions of AMP and Association were sufficient to conclude that
they entered into an anti-competitive agreement or abused their dominant position in the
relevant market and geographical relevant market. Hence, the order made by the CCI and the
NCLAT were within the appropriate competence.
4. Whether the Order made by CCI and sustained by the NCLAT has caused any injustice to
the Appellants? If yes, then;
(i) Whether the acts and omissions on the part of AMP and Association were sufficient to
conclude that they entered in any Anti-competitive Agreement or have abused their
dominant position in the Relevant Market?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that acts and omissions on the part
of AMP and Association were sufficient to conclude that they entered into an Anti-
competitive Agreement or have abused their dominant position in the Relevant Market.
Market refers to where buyers and sellers have access to each other to enter into a
transaction. Relevant market is required to be delineated to identify the boundaries within
which effective competition takes place under competitive constraints.20
Relevant market may be decided with associated relevant product market or the relevant
17
CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors,. (2014) 5 SCC 637
18
Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 1
19
CCI v. Coordination Committee of Artists & Technicians of W.B. Film & Television, (2017)5 SCC 17
20
CCI v. Co-ordination Committee of Artists and Technician s of WB Film and Television, AIR 2017 SC 1449.
17
T-13
geographic market or with reference to both.21In the present case, all the parties involved in
the agreement with BRT India Ltd. Between 8th January to 20th January 2017, for the telecast
of the serial by their satellites during the period of 26th January 2017 to 30th September 2019
in the relevant market.22
Any arrangement between businesses or individuals that has or have the potential to have a
materially adverse impact on competition in India23 is prohibited by Section 3 of the
Competition Act, 2002. The agreement between AMP and Association to stop the three TV
Channels, Channel 10 Bangla, NDTV Bangla, and Bangla TV from airing the dubbed Jack
and Jill serial while using threats to violence is one that has a noticeable negative impact on
competition in the relevant market. Any agreement between parties is forbidden under
Section 3 of the Competition Act of 2002.It is contended from the above mentioned that the
AMP and Assoc. had entered into anti-competitive agreement under section 3,4 of CCI.
The Competition Act, 2002, under Section 4, prohibits any abuse of dominant position by an
enterprise or person. The AMP and Association have abused their dominant position in the
relevant market by preventing the telecast of the dubbed Jack and Jill serial by the three TV
Channels. The AMP and Association have used their dominant position in the relevant
market to prevent the telecast of the dubbed Jack and Jill serial by the three TV Channels.
This is an abuse of their dominant position in the relevant market and is in violation of
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
It is important to note that the provision of section 4 of the Competition Act, does not have
the word 'dominance' but the 'dominant position'.
The Act explains 'dominant position' in terms of powers enjoyed by an enterprise, in the
relevant market in India, which make them to :
Operate independently of the competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market;
affects it's competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favor.
Thus, it is the ability of the enterprise to act independently of the competitive forces that
determines the dominant position.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.24 held that an agreement between two or more enterprises or
persons which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in
India is in violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
also held that an abuse of dominant position by an enterprise or person is in violation of
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
There are certain pre-requisites25 that need to be satisfied for the prima facie violation of
Section 3(4) of the Act:
o Existence of an agreement;
o Between ‘enterprise’ or ‘person’;
21
Sunil Bansal v. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., 2015 Comp LR 1009 (CCI).
22
The Competition Act, 2002, Section 2(t), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
23
Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. v. Commission, (1979) ECR 461.
24
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 8 SCC 705
25
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2014) 8 SCC 705
18
T-13
o Engaged in different stages of the production chain in different markets;
o The agreement should be under Section 3(4);
o The agreement should cause or should be likely to cause AAEC.
Dominance is a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in a market which facilitates it

to operate independently of competitive market forces or favorably affect consumers and/or
competitors. Dominant position is associated to the concept of market power that enables an
enterprise to act independently of competitive forces.26
The Competition Act 2002 lays down the various means employed an enterprise to abuse its
dominant position.27 The AMP & Assoc. had abused its dominance by way of indulging in
practice(s) that results in detail of market access, imposition of irrelevant supplementary
obligations on other parties (Channels); and exercises its dominance in one relevant market
to enter into another market that is relevant geographical market of State of West Bengal.
The BRT India ltd. has right to do free trade or business under Article 19 of the Constitution
of India and can do business anywhere in India. While it is neither possible nor desirable to
create a binding formula for interpreting the term "relevant market", each case is governed
by Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the Act.28
Imposition of unfair condition on the purchase/sale of goods or services and unfair pricing
(including predatory pricing) amounts to abuse of dominance. Unfair conditions are those
that give rise to unfair trade practice which causes loss or injury to the consumer.29In the
present case, the Appellant stopped the other parties to run their business by violent actions
which was against and violated consumers rights and interests by stopping the telecast of
serial in the State of West Bengal.
In the present case, the acts and omissions of AMP and Association were sufficient to
conclude that they entered into an anti-competitive agreement or abused their dominant
position in the relevant market and geographical relevant market. The AMP and Association
were jointly engaged in pressurizing the said Channels to stop the telecast of Bangla dubbed
Jack and Jill serial in the West Bengal. This act of pressurizing the Channels to stop the
telecast of the serial was an anti-competitive agreement as it was likely to cause an
appreciable adverse effect on competition within India.
(ii) Whether the DG proceeded validly within the due competence in concluding that
these were solely the acts/omissions/practices of respondents that have caused the unfair
pressure and obstructed the telecast of Jack and Jill Serial and resultantly the TV
Channels faced the damages?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the DG proceeded validly
within the due competence in concluding that these were solely the
acts/omissions/practices of respondents that have caused the unfair pressure and
26
Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Ltd Haryana Urban Development Authority Department of Town and
Country Planning, State of Haryana, 2011 Comp LR 239 (CCI).
27
The Competition Act, 2002, Section 4, No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
28
Global Tax Free Traders v. William Grant & Sons Limited, 2015 Comp LR 503 (CompAT)
29
HMM Ltd v. Director General, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, (1998) 6 SCC 485.
19
T-13
obstructed the telecast of Jack and Jill Serial and resultantly the TV Channels faced the
damages.
In the case of Competition Commission of India v. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.30, the
Supreme Court held that the CCI has the power to investigate and pass orders in respect of
anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position. The Court also held that the
CCI has the power to impose penalty on the enterprises or persons found guilty of
contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The facts of the case indicate that the AMP and Association have launched a wide spread
violent agitation across the State of West Bengal to prevent the TV Channels from
telecasting the Bangla dubbed Jack and Jill serial. Additionally, the AMP and Association
have sent warning letters to the TV Channels, MTVPIL and HVS containing the similar
threatening contents. Consequently, the telecast of the Bangla dubbed Jack and Jill serial
was stopped by all the Channels on March 22, 2017.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has referred the matter to the Director
General (DG) for a detailed investigation on 10th July, 2017. In its Report, the DG
concluded that the facts reported by the BRT were correct and the acts and omissions on
the part of Respondents have amounted to the contravention of the said sections of the
Competition Act 2002.
The relevant provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 are Sections 3 and 4 which deal
with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position respectively. Section
3(3) of the Act states that any agreement between enterprises or persons at different stages
or levels of the production chain in different markets, in respect of production, supply,
distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which
causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India,
shall be void. Section 4 of the Act states that no enterprise or group shall abuse its
dominant position in the relevant market.
The relevant market means the market in which the enterprise or group operates, or is
likely to operate, or which is likely to be affected by its conduct.
In this case, the DG has concluded that the acts and omissions on the part of Respondents
have contravened the said provisions of the Act, as the same being Anti-Competitive
Agreements having AAE on the free competition in the relevant market. The DG has also
concluded that the Respondents have abused their dominant position in the market by
indulging in such practices which have resulted in denial of free access of dubbed Jack
and Jill serial in the relevant market.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the DG has proceeded validly within the due
competence in concluding that these were solely the acts/omissions/practices of
respondents that have caused the unfair pressure and obstructed the telecast of Jack and
30
Competition Commission of India v. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2016) 4 SCC 703
20
T-13
Jill Serial and resultantly the TV Channels faced the huge damages.
Due to the warning letters sent by the Appellant, aggrieved parties stopped the telecasting
of the serial Jack & Jill in between just after months of release as they were pressurized
and threatened. Along with that, the right of consumer to choose also got violated.
The relevant case laws in this regard are Competition Commission of India v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd.31 wherein the Supreme Court held that the CCI has the power to
investigate and pass orders in respect of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of
dominant position. The Court also held that the CCI has the power to impose penalty on
the enterprises or persons found guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Act.
In the case of Competition Commission of India v. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2015) 8 SCC
613, the Supreme Court held that the CCI has the power to investigate and pass orders in
respect of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position. The Court also
held that the CCI has the power to impose penalty on the enterprises or persons found
guilty of contravention of the provisions of the Act.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of CCI v. Google LLC (2020) has upheld
the principles of competition law and the need to protect competition and the relevant
markets. The court has also held that any actions that can be characterized as ‘anti-
competitive’ or ‘unfair’ should be investigated and acted upon. This is also in line with
the decisions given by international courts, such as the European Court of Justice in the
case32, where it was held that any agreement which has the potential to limit competition
in the relevant market should be investigated and acted upon
Therefore, it can be concluded that the DG has proceeded validly within the due
competence in concluding that these were solely the acts/omissions/practices of
respondents that have caused the unfair pressure and obstructed the telecast of Jack and
Jill Serial and resultantly the TV Channels faced the damages.
(iii) Whether the CCI acted rightly in concluding that the Relevant Market in the present case was
the Film and TV Industry of State of West Bengal and was not located on Pan India basis?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the CCI acted rightly in
concluding that the relevant market in the present case was the Film and TV Industry of the
State of West Bengal and not on a Pan-India basis.
This is in accordance with the principles of antitrust law, which provide that the relevant
market should be defined in terms of both the geographic and product markets. So, the CCI
acted rightly in concluding that the relevant market in the present case was the Film and TV
Industry of State of West Bengal and was not located on Pan India basis.
According to Section 2(r) of the Competition Act 2002, the ‘relevant market’ means the
market which may be determined with reference to the relevant product market or the
31
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2012) 8 SCC 754
32
Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
21
T-13
relevant geographic market or with reference to both. Under the present case, the product
market is the Film and TV Industry while the geographic market is the State of West Bengal.
The relevant market is determined based on the ‘Relevant Factors’ which are listed under
Section 19(3) of the Competition Act 2002, which includes the product market, geographic
market, the degree of competition, the market structure, market shares, the nature of the
products, the market conditions, the market access and the barriers to entry. In the present
case, considering all the relevant factors, it can be concluded that the relevant market is the
Film and TV Industry in the State of West Bengal and not on a Pan India basis. This is
because all the three TV Channels which had agreement with MTVPIL33 for the telecast of
Jack and Jill Serial were locally functional in West Bengal, thus implying.
In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.34, the Supreme Court held that the
relevant market must be identified in terms of the products and services in question, as well
as in terms of the geographic area in which they are supplied or acquired. Thus, the relevant
market and relevant geographic location for the present case is the market for the production
and telecasting of the Bangla dubbed version of the Jack and Jill Hindi television serial, and
the state of West Bengal.
Section 4 (1) of the Competition Act, 2002 provides that an agreement or practice between
two or more enterprises or persons which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse
effect on competition in India, shall be deemed to be an anti-competitive agreement.
Some of the leading Indian cases on market definition include the Competition Commission
of India (CCI) v. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)35 case, where it was held that
the relevant geographic market was the entire country and not just a particular state; the CCI
v. Reliance Industries Ltd. case, where the relevant geographic market was held to be the
entire country and not just the state of Gujarat; and the CCI v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
case, where the relevant geographic market was held to be the entire country and not just the
state of Maharashtra.
Therefore, relevant market for the above case is the market for the production and telecasting
of the Bangla dubbed version of the Jack and Jill Hindi television serial, and the relevant
geographic location is the state of West Bengal36. The Supreme Court has held that the
relevant market in a competition law case is the market in which the goods or services that
are the subject of the agreement or practice, are or are likely to be supplied or acquired.
Hence, the Order made by CCI and sustained by the NCLAT has not caused any injustice to
the Appellants. The CCI acted rightly in concluding that the relevant market in the present
case was the Film and TV Industry of State of West Bengal and not located on a Pan India
basis. This was based on the principles of market definition in Competition Law, which
33
Moot Proposition Para 3.
34
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., (1977) 1 SCC 635
35
Competition Commission of India (CCI) v. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
36
Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2015) 3 SCC 467
22
T-13
requires a consideration of the relevant geographic and product market in order to determine
the relevant market.
23
T-13
PRAYER
The CCI would pray to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to uphold the order of the NCLAT and to
confirm the imposition of a fine of Rs. 100 Crore on the Respondents for their anti-competitive
practices and abuse of dominant position in the relevant market of West Bengal. The CCI would
also pray for an injunction to be issued to the Respondents to restrain them from further
indulging in such anti-competitive practices in the future.
24

Respondent Memorial Team 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Memorial Team 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

`T-13

7TH C.L. AGARWAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

AMP & ASSOCIATION……........................................................................APPELLANT

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (CCI)………………………RESPONDENT

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1. Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd, (2019) 2 SCC 521

1. The Constitution of India,1950

DATA BASE REFERED:

o Between ‘enterprise’ or ‘person’;

o The agreement should be under Section 3(4);

o The agreement should cause or should be likely to cause AAEC.

Dominance is a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in a market which facilitates it

You might also like