9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the contentions of the Appellant is that the cause of the Appellant is to promote Kannada literature and to ensure livelihood of artists in Kannada film industries and not otherwise. However, from the sequence of events and from the evidences on the record that the conduct of the Appellant and the opposite parties is anti-competitive thus, resulted in limiting production and supply of dubbed movies and their screening within the State of Karnataka which directly hits the provisions of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. This Tribunal is of the view that the order passed by the 1st Respondent dealt all the issues including the evidences led by the Director General and other evidence by the Commission itself. Having dealt the issues meticulously on the basis of the evidence on record, this Tribunal find that there is ample evidence to suggest the existence of anti-competitive conduct by the Appellant and the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, this Tribunal prima-facie holds that the DG and the Commission relied upon the material evidence and comes to a definite conclusion that the Appellant and the Opposite Parties indulge in anti-competitive conduct in violatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the 2nd Respondent / Informant failed to establish the case against the Appellant, however, the Commission passed the impugned order, without any reasons, thus, the impugned order is under challenged in this Appeal. The Learned Counsel submitted the brief facts of the case. 3. It is submitted that the Appellant is a society registered under the Mysore Societies Registration on 26.08.1944 established with the main objective to promote the film industry in the State of Karnataka consisting the producers, distributors, and exhibitors as its members. It also aims to protect and conserve literature and culture of native languages such as Konkani, Tulu and Kodava along with Kannada as these languages are distinct and spoken only in the State of Karnataka also having their origin in Karnataka. The Appellant is also established with object to protect the welfare of its members and assist them in obtaining various facilities accorded by the Govt. of Karnataka. 4. The present dispute arises out of the information filed by Mr. G. Krishnamurthy ( the Informant ) 2nd Respondent herein under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 claiming to be a producer of films involved in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter nor does the evidence on record even corroborate the liability or the culpability of the Appellant. 9. The impugned order and the DG report completely ignored the fact that the present complaint lodged by the Informant Mr. G. Krishnamurthy, Respondent No.2 herein is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. The said informant had already filed civil suits against the appellant, out of personal grudge ill will and ego disputes, before the original side trial courts in Karnataka. The present complaint given by the 2nd Respondent is an attempt by him to convert a private grudge/dispute between him and the other opposite parties into a dispute under public law (competition law), thereby wasting the time of public authorities, with an evil intention to settle personal scores. Therefore, such matters ought to have been dismissed or rejected by the commission with exemplary cost. 10. It is submitted that the Learned Commission has erred gravely by overlooking such evidence, which error has led to miscarriage of justice and renders the impugned order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. The Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence to show that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) 1st Respondent (CCI) Nil b) 2nd Respondent (Mr. G. Krishnamurthy) Informant c) Appellant (Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) Opposite Party (OP) No.1 d) 3rd Respondent (Kannada Okkuta) Opposite Party (OP) No.2 e) 4th Respondent (Mr. Jaggesh) Opposite Party (OP) No.3 f) 5th Respondent (Mr. Vatal Nagaraj) Opposite Party (OP) No.4 g) 6th Respondent (SA.Ra. Govindhu) Opposite Party (OP) No.5 17. The 1st Respondent passed the order dated 30.08.2018 on the basis of information filed by the 2nd Respondent herein under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (in short The Act ) against the Appellant and the other Opposite Parties alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The 2nd Respondent a former Member of the Appellant is a Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017 under Section 26(1) of the Act directed the Director General (in short DG ) to cause investigation into the allegation made by the Informant. The DG conducted investigation and submitted its report dated 10.04.2018 and the 1st Respondent after hearing the parties passed the order. The bone of contention of the 2nd Respondent that the Appellant and the Respondents No.3 to 6 and the Opposite Parties contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 22. The DG after its investigation found that the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent provided the necessary platform as an Association to their key office bearers i.e. the 5th and 6th Respondents along with 4th Respondent to issue statements during the press meet on 01.03.2017 at Press Club, Bengaluru. It is also found that the such statements instigated the sentiments of the public. Even the 5th Respondent stated to torch the theatres which were screening the dubbed movie and the 4th Respondent supported the cause by his inflammatory tweets. The You Tube videos, news reports and media coverage of the protest created a negative and threatening atmosphere for the exhibition of the Respondents movie. Further the report of the DG st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 whereby it was tweeted that he will burn down the theatres in case dubbed cinemas are released. The content of the tweet thus read as under: I have gone through the newspaper cutting and want to state that this tweet was an emotional outburst on account of my long-held belief against dubbed cinemas and it was not directed towards one cinema. What I have said is that I will commit self-immolation before the theatres, if these movies played, all this was an emotional outburst. 26. The 1st Respondent vide order dated 27.07.2016 directed the Appellant to cease and desist from practices restricting dubbed cinema in the State of Karnataka. The said order attained finality and the Appellant and other members are bound by the said order. However, the Opposite Parties deliberately disobeyed the said order. 27. The 6th Respondent admitted participating in the press meet organised by the 5th Respondent. Further, from the depositions of 4th Respondent and others, it is clear that the press meet was jointly organised by the Appellant, the 3rd Respondent, 5th Respondent and 6th Respondent. Further, it is evident that the purpose of organizing the press meet was to send a strong m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector) respectively are reproduced hereunder: Statement of Mr. Rangayna Raghu Ques. 2 You are being shown a YouTube video of the press meet held at Press Club, Bangalore, on 01.03.2017. Who has arranged this press meet and who were the other members who have addressed the press with regard to release of dubbed movie Sathyadev IPS ? Ans. 2 The press meet was called by Mr Vatal Nagraj and Mr. Sa Ra Govindu . Statement of Mr. Sadhu Kokola Ques. 2 You are being shown a YouTube video of the press meet held a Press Club, Bangalore, on 01.03.2017. Who has arranged this press meet and ? Ans. 2 The press meet was organised by KFCC . Statement of Mr. Srinivasa Murthy Ques. 2 You are being shown a YouTube video of the press meet held a Press Club, Bangalore, on 01.03.2017. Who has arranged this press meet and ? Ans. 2 The Press meet was organised by KFCC Sa ra Govindu and Mr Vatal Nagraj, as a member of KFCC I have participated in the press meet. The press meet was against dubbed Cinema and not any specific movie. If dubbed movie is allowed the artists will become jobless. 32. The 1st Respondent herein, find evidence again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antly, the viewers/consumers are not forced to watch any dubbed contents. It is the discretion of the viewer to exercise her choice as to which programme she wants to watch. She has to pay for the programms she wants to watch as most of the entertainment programms on TV are not available free of cost. Therefore, it is the viewer who should have the choice to watch a dubbed programme or original language programme or any other programme. Trade associations such as OP-1 and OP-2 cannot become the self-appointed guardians of local language and culture and interfere with the market forces. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Commission agrees with the DG that the justification offered by OP-1 and OP-2 is liable to be rejected. 34. Against the above order of the Commission dated 27.07.2015, the State of Karnataka including the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Appellate Forum challenging the said order, however, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal filed by the Appellant on merits on 10.04.2017. Against the said dismissal of the Appeal, an Appeal was filed before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the said appeal at the stage of ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
