9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oundational to any inquiry by the CCI. The relevant geographical market in the present case is within the State of Kerala and not beyond the State of Kerala. In the present case, the impugned investigation has been ordered in respect of the agreements entered into by the present Petitioner with others having its area of operation in the State of Kerala. Hence, if at all, the further orders would have effect, it would be for the area of operation in the State of Kerala. The entire investigation to be conducted is with regard to the agreements entered into by the parties for its operation in the geographical area of Kerala. The complainant in its complaint before the CCI has never alleged that the Petitioners herein have committed anti competitive act with the parties in the State of Maharashtra. The allegations are restricted to the State of Kerala. The scope of complaint of the Respondent / Complainant before the CCI does not include the contracts or the anti competitive acts with any party within the State of Maharashtra. In view of that it cannot be said that the effect and consequences of the impugned order would be felt in the State of Maharashtra. Petition disposed off. - As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olve common question of law and to avoid rigmarole, are decided by the common judgment. 2 Asianet Digital Network (P) Ltd. (ADNPL) filed an information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act 2002 (Act 2002) against Star India (P) Ltd. (SIPL), Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd. (Disney) and Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Asianet Star) alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act 2002. The informant (Respondent No. 2) claims to be a Multi System Operator (MSO) engaged in business of providing digital TV services, predominantly in Kerala. It also operates in Karnataka, Andra Pradesh, Telangana and Odisha. 3 The case of ADNPL is that it received broadcasting signals from SIPL for monetary consideration for the purpose of supplying the channels of SIPL to customers and for the said purpose ADNPL entered into an agreement with SIPL from time to time. It is averred by the ADNPL that SIPL was providing a bouquet of channels to the competitors of the ADNPL at lesser prices resulting into denial of market access and also amounting to unfair / discriminatory pricing. KCCL was getting the channels at about 30% of the MRP i.e. about 70% discount (special discoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtains to a prima facie determination of abuse of dominance in the State of Kerala on the part of the Petitioners along with its related parties. The prima facie case relates to the alleged discriminatory treatment of MSOs in the State of Kerala. The impugned order explicitly delineates the relevant market as the market for provision of broadcasting service in the State of Kerala. The Informant is based in the State of Kerala. The consumer base is entirely in the State of Kerala. The advertisement agreement has also been executed in Kerala. No part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Maharashtra entitling the Petitioners to file the Writ Petitions in this Court. 8 The learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioners reference to CCI being a National Regulator is irrelevant. The Application of the Competition Act in this case is to the geographical market in the State of Kerala. Section 19 of the 2002 Act provides that the relevant geographical market has to be identified in such proceedings. The alleged anti competitive conduct is conduct in the State of Kerala and not outside the State of Kerala. The identification of the relevant geographical market or territorialit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 19(1) of the Act 2002 was initiated by the ADNPL in New Delhi. The CCI passed the impugned order in New Delhi. The office of the Director General is at New Delhi from where it would conduct the investigation. The averments in the petition do not disclose that even part of jurisdiction arises within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Maharashtra and that only because the Petitioner has registered office at Mumbai, would not be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate on the judgment of the Apex in the Case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711 The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Union of India Ors. s. Adani Exports Ltd. Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 567 to contend that inorder to confer jurisdiction on High Court under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, the facts which have bearing in the lis or dispute involved in the case do not give any rise to the cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. 9 The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, as such, submits that this Court may not entertain the Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the fact that a major portion of the investigation of the case to be conducted at Mumbai was sufficient to show that the Petition was maintainable. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Willis India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Insurance Rgulatory and Development Authority 2011 Vol.113 (3) Bom.L.R. 1115 . It is submitted that in the said case the Petitioner s registered office was located in Mumbai and running business operations from Mumbai was sufficient to show that the Petitioner was affected by the impugned order in Mumbai and Petition was thus maintainable in this Court. 14 The learned Senior Advocate submits that the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Devi Vs. Union of India (2020) 10 SCC 766 held that under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, a Petition is maintainable if part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. According to the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, this Court certainly can exercise jurisdiction. 15 It is also contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner that the reference is also made in the complaint to the marketing arrangements with a few other MS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) the Court observed as under: Forum conveniens 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney 1941 SCC OnLine Cal.247, Madanlal Jalan Vs. Madanlal 1945 SCC OnLine Cal.145, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Jharia Talkies Cold Storage (P) Ltd. 1997 CWN 122, S.S. Jain Co. Vs. Union of India 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 306 and New Horizon Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1993 SCC OnLine Del 564. 20 The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Chhotu Pawar Vs. Collector, Raigad Ors. 2020(6) Mh.L.J. 285 to which one of us (S.V. Gangapurwala,J) was a party, observed as under: 18. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is sky high, but also has a regulation coming along under Article 226(2). The powers of this Court under Article 226 is sacrosanct. No stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary to be proved before the Petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts. 10. Keeping in view the expressions used is Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. 23 The Competent Commission of India is a National Regulatory having jurisdiction all over India. However, only because it has jurisdiction all over India, would not be sufficient for invoking the jurisdiction by any High Court throughout the country. Perusal of the complaint, the alleged commission of the anti competitive acts pertain to the State of Kerala. The geographical market is described under the CCI Act. 24 Place of work of the Petitioner and /or Respondent may not be much relevant in deciding the jurisdictional aspect. The place of residence of the Petitioner would not be relevant. However, what is relevant is that the cause of action, wholly or in part arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The determinative factor is the place of accrual of cause of acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority stationed at Chennai. The entries in the passbook under the scheme were to be made by the Authorities at Chennai. The export of shrimps made by the Petitioner therein and the import of the inputs, the benefits of which the Respondents had sought in the Applications also were to be made through Chennai. The Petitioners therein contended that they are carrying on the business of export and export or that they are receiving the export and import at Ahmedabad. Their documents for payment of import and exports made / sent at Ahmedabad. The apex court observed that these facts have no connection whatsoever with the dispute that is involved in the petition. The fact that the credit on duty claimed in respect of the exports that was made in Chennai were handled by the Respondents at Ahmedabad have also no connection whatsoever with the impugned action of the Respondent therein. The non-grant and denial of credit in the passbook having ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the Petitioner at Ahmedabad would not also give rise to any cause of action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate the actions complained against the Petitioners. 28 Only because the Petitioners carry on bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court s territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute inovlved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the cateogry of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad. 31 The apex court, in the case of Kusum Ingots (supra) has observed that even the operation of the Statute applicable to the whole of India cannot be challenged in any High Court within the territory of India but only in the territory where the provisions of the Statute give rise to the civil consequences to the Petitioner. 32 Taking the stock of the factual matrix involved in the present case and the judgments delivered by the apex court cited by the learned Advocates, it is abundantly clear that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
