Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sports Broadcasters. Vs. Essel Shyam Communication Limited & others (CCI)
Appeal Number : Suo Motu Case No. 02 of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 11/07/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sports Broadcasters. Vs. Essel Shyam Communication Limited & others (CCI)

CCI passes order under Lesser Penalty Provisions against broadcasting service providers for rigging bids in tenders by Sports Broadcasters

This case was taken up by Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) suo motu under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) based on the disclosure by Globecast India Private Limited and Globecast Asia Private Limited [collectively referred to as Globecast] under Section 46 of the Act read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (‘Lesser Penalty Regulations’). Subsequently, Essel Shyam Communication Limited (ESCL), now Planetcast Media Services Limited, also approached CCI as lesser penalty applicant during investigation.

CCI imposed penalty on Globecast, a subsidiary of the Orange Group (earlier France Telecom Group), a global service provider of broadcasting services and ESCL, a technology service provider in India since 1998 with specialisation in media broadcasting, for indulging in bid-rigging in tenders floated by sports broadcasters for procurement of  end-to-end broadcasting services i.e. ground segment services as well as satellite bandwidth services, for various sporting events during the period July 2011- May 2012 including Indian Premier League 2012 (IPL-2012).

From the evidence collected in the case, CCI found that the ESCL and Globecast operated a cartel amongst them in the various sporting events held during the years 2011-12 including IPL-2012. While submitting bids for the tender floated by various broadcasters during the period July 2011- May 2012 for provision of end-to-end broadcasting services, they exchanged information and quoted bid prices as per the arrangements arrived at amongst them. As a result, they committed an infringement of the provisions of Section 3(3)(d) read with Section 3(1) of the Act during this period.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031