Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice S.V Gangapurwala and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar disposed of a petition in a case related to an investigation being conducted by the Competition Commission of India, against Star India (P) Ltd., Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd., and  Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd.

Earlier the High Court, in April 2022, had granted interim order directing the Competition Commission of India to not take any coercive action against the three broadcasters. The advocate for the broadcasting companies asked the court to extend the interim order passed earlier.

The Asia Digital Network Ltd had previously filed an information before the CCI under Section 19(1)(a) alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act of 2002. The informant is a Multi System Operator providing TV services predominantly in Kerala. The informant stated that Star India Pvt. (SIPL) Ltd had entered into an agreement with the informant for broadcasting signals.

It was alleged that the SIPL had also entered into an agreement with other competitors and was providing discounts to the competitors, thereby amounting to a denial of market access and discriminatory pricing. It was alleged that SIPL was providing discounts below the percentage prescribed under the law and was also abusing its dominant position. Subsequently, the commission directed the Director General to conduct an investigation and submit its report in 60 days, exercising their powers under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act 2002.

The advocate for the respondent argued before the court that abusive conduct pertains to the entire State of Kerala and no part of the cause of action arises in the State of Maharashtra. He submitted that the case relates to the alleged discriminatory treatment of MSOs, relevant market, the informant, consumer base, and advertisement agreement all of which are from the State of Kerala and that the cause of action has not arisen in Maharashtra.

The advocate for the petitioners argued before the court stating that part cause of action arose in Maharashtra and therefore the court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, he argued that the negotiations and sanction to the agreement with the informant, payment to the bank account, and registered office of the petitioner are in the State of Maharashtra.

The court while disposing of the petition noted that the place of work of the Petitioner and /or Respondent may not be much relevant in deciding the jurisdictional aspect and the place of the residence of the petitioner is irrelevant. Further, the court noted that:

“The identification of the relevant geographical market or territoriality is the statutory embodied feature in the Competition Act and is foundational 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.”

The Court extended the interim order for 10 days, and gave liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings against the order before the appropriate forum possessing territorial jurisdiction.

Case title: Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd vs Competition Commission of India & Ors.