CCI dismisses cable TV monopolization allegations in Chhattisgarh, finds no Section 3 or 4 violations

The CCI dismissed allegations of unlawful share seizure and monopolization of cable TV network business in Chhattisgarh against multiple opposite parties. The Commission found Section 3(3) inapplicable as it requires two or more enterprises in identical/similar trade, which was absent. For Section 4 violations, the CCI noted that joint/collective dominance inquiries are not provided under the Act. Without establishing contraventions under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act 2002, the information was closed under Section 26(2), and relief under Section 33 was rejected.

---

---

Issues:
Alleged contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 by the Opposite Parties (OPs).

Analysis:
The Informants, M/s Vande Mataram Cable TV Network and Jaipal Singh Gulati, filed an Information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against various parties, collectively referred to as Opposite Parties (OPs), including influential individuals and companies in the cable TV network business in Chhattisgarh. The Informants alleged contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, specifically accusing OP-5, OP-6, and OP-7 of monopolizing the market through unlawful means. They claimed that OP-5 and OP-6 misused the police to intimidate competitors, leading to the seizure of shares and financial losses for the Informants. Additionally, they alleged tax evasion and coercive practices by OP-5 and OP-6 to control the cable TV market in Chhattisgarh.

The Commission noted the roles of the parties involved, distinguishing between content creators/broadcasters (OP-8 and OP-9) and distribution chain operators (MSOs and LCOs). Regarding the alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Act, the Commission found that the requirements of Section 3(3) were not met in this case, as it necessitates two or more enterprises engaging in similar trade or services. The Commission determined that the provisions of Section 3(3) were not applicable based on the relationships among the OPs and the facts presented.

Furthermore, the Commission addressed the allegations of violation of Section 4 of the Act, which deals with abuse of dominant position. It clarified that defining a relevant market and assessing dominance are crucial for examining Section 4 contravention. However, in this case, the Commission decided not to define a precise relevant market and found no imperative need to establish contravention under Section 4. The Commission emphasized that the Act does not cover cases of joint/collective dominance, leading to the rejection of the alleged violation of Section 4 against the OPs.

Ultimately, the Commission concluded that no prima facie case of contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was established based on the facts and circumstances presented. Consequently, the Information filed against the OPs was directed to be closed under Section 26(2) of the Act, and the relief sought under Section 33 was rejected. The Secretary was tasked with communicating this decision to the Informants, bringing the matter to a close.

---