Concerted refusal against dubbed films found anti-competitive under competition law, with coordinated conduct and exclusionary intent affirmed.

Concerted action to restrict the release, screening and exhibition of dubbed films in Karnataka was treated as anti-competitive conduct where the record showed coordinated opposition rather than isolated personal views. The Tribunal relied on the press meet, public statements, tweets, media reports and witness evidence to find a shared object to obstruct the informant's dubbed film, create a threatening atmosphere and suppress exhibition. It also noted that an earlier cease-and-desist order against similar restrictions had attained finality, reinforcing that such conduct could not lawfully continue. The Commission's finding of violation under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002 was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant and the other opposite parties engaged in anti-competitive conduct by acting in concert to restrict the release, screening and exhibition of dubbed films in Karnataka.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the material collected in investigation, including the press meet, public statements, tweets, media reports and witness depositions, to hold that the conduct was not isolated or personal but reflected coordinated action. It accepted that the press meet was used as a common for opposing dubbed films, that the participants acted with a shared object, and that their acts created a threatening atmosphere and obstructed the exhibition of the informant's dubbed film. The Tribunal further noted that the earlier cease-and-desist order against similar practices had attained finality, reinforcing that the appellant could not lawfully continue such restrictions.

Conclusion: The appellant's conduct was correctly held to be anti-competitive and in violation of Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Commission's findings were affirmed.

---