Case Law Details
Association of Malayalam Movie Artists Vs Competition Commission of India & Ors. (NCLAT Delhi))
Conclusion: ‘Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes’ (AMMA), Film Employees Federation of Kerala’ (FEFKA), ‘FEFKA Director’s Union’ and ‘FEFKA Production Executive’s Union’ and their office bearers were found to be liable under Section 48 for violation of anti-competitive conduct.
Held: AMMA had a dispute with the ‘Kerala Film Chamber’ in the year 2004 with regard to agreements entered into with the actors on various aspects, including remuneration, shooting time schedule, etc. The Informant, who was then the President of the ‘Malayalam Artists and Cine Technicians Association’ (MACTA) Federation, supported this idea of having an agreement/contract in place to safeguard the rights of both sides. Purportedly, ‘Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes’, Prominent Malayalam Film Actors Mammooty, Mohanlal and Dileep were agitated with the Informant due to this. In the year 2007, the Informant headed an initiative called ‘Cinema Forum’ which envisaged collaboration between filmmakers and distributors to make low budget movies with new actors. It was alleged Mammooty, Mohanlal and Dileep felt insecure about their film career due to this new initiative and began influencing people to scuttle it. In the year 2008, Dileep accepted advance and signed an agreement with Ullatil Films but later insisted that he would do this film only when the director, Thulasidas, is removed. This, as per the Informant, amounted to a violation of the agreement. The Informant advised all the actors to abide by the terms of the agreement they signed with the directors. It was alleged that due to these incidents, ‘Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes’ and its prominent members/actors bore a grudge against the Informant and used their clout to reduce the strength of MACTA Federation and forced its members to split and form an alternative association by the name ‘Film Employees Federation of Kerala’ (FEFKA). The informant was later allegedly banned from making films in the Malayalam Film Industry. Such conduct of the Opposite Parties, as per the Informant, had affected fair competition in the market, the interests of consumers and freedom of trade carried on by other participants by limiting and restricting the market in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. Informant had further alleged that the Opposite Parties, by virtue of its dominant position in the Malayalam film industry, had sought to control and abuse it within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act.It was held that tere were large number of evidences which had been relied upon by the DG and also by the Commission to come to a definite conclusion about the Appellant(s) indulged in anti-competitive conduct in violation of the provision of Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellants – ‘Association of Malayalam Movie Artists’ (hereinafter, ‘AMMA’/‘Opposite Party 1’/ ‘OP-1’); ‘Film Employees Federation of Kerala’ (hereinafter, ‘FEFKA’/‘Opposite Party No. 2’/ ‘OP-2’); ‘FEFKA Director’s Union’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 6’/ ‘OP-6’); and ‘FEFKA Production Executive’s Union’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 7’/ ‘OP-7’) and their office bearers were found to be liable under Section 48 of the anti-competitive conduct.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
The Informant –‘Shri T. G. Vinaykumar’ moved an application under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’, for short) against the Appellants – ‘Association of Malayalam Movie Artists’ (hereinafter, ‘AMMA’/‘Opposite Party No. 1’/ ‘OP-1’); ‘Film Employees Federation of Kerala’ (hereinafter, ‘FEFKA’/‘Opposite Party No. 2’/ ‘OP-2’); ‘Shri Mammooty’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 3’/ ‘OP-3’); ‘Shri Mohanlal’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 4’/ ‘OP-4’), ‘Shri Dileep’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 5’/ ‘OP- 5’); ‘FEFKA Director’s Union’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 6’/ ‘OP-6’); and ‘FEFKA Production Executive’s Union’ (hereinafter, ‘Opposite Party No. 7’/ ‘OP-7’) alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
