Minority Judgment Prevails: Co-ordination Committee's Actions Found Legitimate Under Competition Law.

The appeal was successful, leading to the majority order being overturned in favor of the minority judgment. The minority judgment was upheld, determining that the Co-ordination Committee's actions did not violate Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002. It was emphasized that the Co-ordination Committee's activities, while potentially misguided, were legitimate trade union activities and did not constitute anti-competitive practices.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether EIMPA and Co-ordination Committee imposed/attempted to impose restrictions on the telecast of the dubbed serial "Mahabharata".
2. Whether the act and conduct of imposing restrictions on the telecast of the said serial is in violation of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Restrictions on Telecast of Dubbed Serial "Mahabharata"
The CCI found that both EIMPA and the Co-ordination Committee imposed restrictions on the telecast of the dubbed serial "Mahabharata". This conclusion was based on letters dated 18.02.2011 and subsequent communications, which included threats and agitations that led Channel-10 to stop the telecast of the serial. The CCI determined that these actions exerted undue pressure on the channels, thereby restricting the telecast of the dubbed serial.

Issue 2: Violation of Provisions of the Competition Act, 2002
The CCI held that the actions of EIMPA and the Co-ordination Committee were in contravention of Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002. The CCI reasoned that the conduct of these entities hindered competition by creating barriers to the entry of new content in the form of dubbed TV serials, thus harming consumers by depriving them of the dubbed serial. The CCI also concluded that the Co-ordination Committee, despite being a trade union, was not exempt from the purview of the Competition Act.

Minority Judgment Analysis:
The minority judgment, penned by Justice Dhingra, disagreed with the majority order. It argued that the relevant market was incorrectly identified by the DG as the "Film and Television industry of West Bengal", which was too broad. Instead, the relevant market should have been "broadcast of TV serials dubbed in Bangla language". The minority judgment also stated that the Co-ordination Committee's actions were more akin to trade union activities rather than economic pressures that would fall under Section 3 of the Competition Act. It concluded that the threats and protests by the Co-ordination Committee did not constitute an agreement limiting or controlling production, supply, or market, and thus did not violate Section 3(3)(b).

Conclusion:
The appeal succeeded, and the majority order was set aside in favor of the minority judgment. The minority judgment was confirmed, holding that the actions of the Co-ordination Committee did not constitute a violation of Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002. The judgment emphasized that the Co-ordination Committee's protests, although possibly based on a wrong perception, were legitimate trade union activities and did not amount to anti-competitive practices.

---