Bombay High Court refuses intervention in pleas by Asianet, Disney India, Star India against CCI

Bombay High Court refuses intervention in pleas by Asianet, Disney India, Star India against CCI

The Bombay High Court has refused to exercise its territorial jurisdiction in the petitions filed by three broadcasting companies, Asianet Star Communications, Disney Broadcasting (India) Pvt Ltd., and Star India. But directed the petitioners to furnish documentary material in response to the queries in the competition regulator's order

The petitions were filed in furtherance of an order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiating an investigation against the companies.

The petitioners requested the court to extend the interim order granted in April 2022 directing the CCI to not take any coercive action against the three broadcasters and media and entertainment companies.

The Bench comprising of Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Madhav Jamdar clarified that while they had held they were not exercising territorial jurisdiction, they had not held they did not have inherent jurisdiction to hold old orders void ab initio.

While allowing the request, the bench stated that considering the interim order was in force for almost five months, it was being continued for another 10 days. But after the lapse of the duration, the protection would end.

The court also directed the petitioners to furnish to the Director General, CCI, without prejudice and no-equities basis, the documentary material required in response to the queries in the order.

The petitioners challenged the February 2022 CCI order, directing its Director General to initiate an investigation under the Competition Act based on a complaint filed by Asianet Digital Network Private Limited (ADNPL).

ADNPL deals in the business of distribution of TV channels to customers through local cable operators, predominantly in Kerala. In its complaint, it contended that the broadcasters should not have discriminatory pricing in commercial contracts with multi-service operators.

ADNPL referred to the regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). The regulations prohibit discriminatory pricing in commercial contracts with multi-service operators.

The complaint mentioned that the petitioners abused their position of dominance by providing significant discounts to a direct competitor through allied agreements that apparently offered a cashback system. They bypassed the regulations and provided ADNPL's competitor with an unfair advantage.

The CCI ordered the Director General to investigate and submit a report within 60 days.

ADNPL challenged the order before the high court. But CCI opposed the petition on the point of jurisdiction. It stated that since the entire issue arose in Kerala, the challenge must also be in a court of the state.

However, ADNPL submitted that the petitioners were subverting the TRAI/TDSAT norms causing prejudice to it. It contended that all that CCI intended to do was data collection.

After hearing the arguments of both parties, the court concluded it would not exercise its territorial jurisdiction.