Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
1. The Information in this matter has been filed by M/s Vande Mataram Cable TV Network (“Informant No. 1”) and Jaipal Singh Gulati (“Informant No. 2”) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) against the Union of India through the Secretary, Information & Broadcasting (“OP-1”); the State of Chhattisgarh through its Principal Secretary, Home Department (“OP-2”); the Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise Commissionerate (“OP-3”); the Commissioner, Commercial Tax GST, Government of Chhattisgarh (“OP-4”); Taranjeet Singh Hora (“OP-5”); Gurucharan Singh Hora (“OP-6”); M/s Grand Vision Television Network (“OP-7”); M/s Star Television (“OP-8”); and M/s Zee Television (“OP-9”) (hereinafter OP-1 to OP-9 are collectively referred to as the “Opposite Parties/OPs”), alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
2. Informant No. 1 is stated to be a close partnership firm and a registered Multi System Operator (MSO) by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting and Informant No. 2 is the owner of M/s Korba Cable TV Network which is a registered Local Cable Operator (LCO).
3. It has been stated in the Information that M/s Grand Vision Cable TV Network (OP-7) of Raipur is under the sole proprietorship of Taranjeet Singh Hora (OP-5) who is the son of Gurucharan Singh Hora (OP-6), the actual promoter of the Grand Vision Cable TV Net-work (OP-7).
4. It has been submitted by the Informants that OP-5 and OP-6 along with their associates and friends who are influential politicians and officers in Chhattisgarh have frequently misused the police to intimidate the Cable TV network operators/ inputters in the state by filing malicious and false Criminal Complaints (FIRs) at various police stations to force-fully grab their cable TV networks and monopolize the business.
5. Further, it has been averred that OP-5 and OP-6 got many Cable TV inputters arrested and forced them and their other associates/ employees to transfer their rights to OP-5, OP-6, and OP-7 through void agreements contrary to the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. It is also submitted that in the year 2018, OP-5 and OP-6 got Informant-2 (Jaipal Singh Gulati) and other network operators/ inputters arrested based on a false police com-plaint.
6. Additionally, it has been stated in the Information that in the year 2020, a similar method was used to unlawfully and coercively seize the shares of Informant-1's partners, resulting in the expropriation of nearly Rs. Two crore from M/s Vande Mataram Cable TV Network through fraudulent financial practices. This was achieved by diverting all revenue to per-sonal business accounts while deliberately evading GST and other tax obligations.
7. The Informants have further alleged that OP-5 and OP-6 have also influenced OP-8 and OP-9 to disrupt the signal supply and withhold the pending carriage charges to the Cable TV MSO like Vande Mataram Cable TV Network (Informant-1) & Paynet Broad Band Services. As a result, these operators are suffering a severe financial crisis and may soon face bankruptcy due to a lack of funds.
8. The Informants have also averred that as of September 2021, Chhattisgarh had approxi-mately 39 MSOs, but due to coercion from the police and OP-5 and OP-6, 30 MSOs are now operating under OP-7. Moreover, OP-8 and OP-9, influenced by OP-5 and OP-6, are pressuring the financially vulnerable MSOs to eliminate competition and gain control over the Cable TV Network market in Chhattisgarh.
9. The Informants have also alleged that the OP-5 and OP-6 have misappropriated and seized over Rs. 50 crores from the cable network business in Chhattisgarh through Goods and Sales Tax & Income Tax evasion, as well as money laundering.
10. Based on the above, the Informants have alleged contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by the OPs and have prayed to the Commission to prevent OP-5 & OP-7 from acquir-ing other Cable TV Networks in the State of Chhattisgarh and from operating as LCO or MSO in any districts other than Raipur in the state of Chhattisgarh.
11. The Informants have also sought interim relief under Section 33 of the Act, including a direction to restrain Opposite Parties (OP-5, OP-6, and OP-7) from interfering with the business operations of Informant No. 1. Additionally, they requested the Commission to direct OP-8 and OP-9 to refrain from disrupting TV signal inputs and to settle the outstanding carriage charges owed to Informant No. 1. Furthermore, they sought to restrain the remaining Opposite Parties from disrupting the informant’s cable TV Multi-System Operations business in the Korba District, State of Chhattisgarh, in any manner.
12. The Commission considered the material available on record in its ordinary meeting held on 04.09.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.
13. Having considered the averments and allegations made in the Information, the Commission observes that the core issue raised by the Informants arises from the purported unlawful seizure of shares and the monopolization of the cable TV network business in Chhattisgarh by the Opposite Parties (OP-5, OP-6, and OP-7), as detailed hereinabove.
14. As stated in the information, the Commission notes that Informant-1 is registered as a Multi System Operator by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India having its Cable TV Network in Korba, Chhattisgarh, and Informant-2 is the owner of the Korba Cable TV Network, Chhattisgarh which is a registered Local Cable Operator. Further, OP-5 (Taranjeet Singh Hora) and OP-6 (Gurucharan Singh Hora) are owners of OP-7 (Grand Vision Television Network, MSO) and OP-8 and OP-9 are broadcasters. The Commission observes that there is a distinction in the roles, as OP-8 and OP-9 serve as content creators and broadcasters, producing original programming and distributing it via their network of channels, while the MSOs and LCOs function as part of the distribution chain, responsible for delivering this content to viewers. As regards contravention of Section 3 of the Act, the Commission notes that the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act read with Section 3(3) thereof have no manner of application in the factual matrix of the present case as Section 3(3) of the Act requires two or more enterprises engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services and even if they are not engaged in identical trade, they must be presumed to be part of an agreement if they participate or intend to participate in furthering such an agreement. Looking at the relationship among OPs and the facts and circumstances of the case, as detailed above, it is evident that provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act are not applicable.
15. Further, the Commission is of the view that, for the applicability of Section 4 of the Act and the examination of contravention thereof, it may be axiomatic to define a relevant market and assess the dominance of the entity alleged to be abusing its dominant position in such market. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the abuses as alleged, the Commission does not find it imperative to define a precise relevant market in the instant matter. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Informants have alleged violation of Section 4 of the Act against all the OPs. The Commission observes that it is a settled position that the provisions of the Act do not provide for inquiry into the cases of joint/collective dominance. Accordingly, no case of contravention under Section 4 of the Act has been established.
16. The Commission notes that for the aforesaid reasons, it is unnecessary to delve deeper into the allegations. While the grievances raised by the Informant may give rise to a dispute, however, the Commission is not the right forum for adjudication of the same.
17. Resultantly, the Commission is of the opinion, prima facie, no case of contravention of provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act is made out and accordingly, the Information filed against OPs is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant of relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the prayer for the same is also rejected.
18. The Secretary is directed to communicate to the Informants, accordingly.
