Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Shri Kshitiz Arya Vs Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd (Competition Commission of India)
Appeal Number : Case No. 03 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 01/06/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Shri Kshitiz Arya Vs Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd (Competition Commission of India)

It is observed that the releasing of a movie is a strategic and tactical business decision taken by the producers. The makers of a film have to consider a lot of factors before releasing the movies for distribution such as market targeting, branding of the movie, distribution expenditure, revenue sharing with the distributors and competition with other movies, among others. A major concern for the producer of a movie is to get the maximum number of screens for release of a movie as the same is directly proportional to the potential revenue generated by the movie. Further, owing to piracy issues in the film industry, movie production houses releasing mega budget movies adopt a business strategy of simultaneously releasing their new movies in a large number of screens in order to realise maximum revenue during the first week of their release. Thus, the strategy of production houses releasing mega budgeted movie in not competing with another big budget movie does not seem to be unfair as both the movies cannot be released simultaneously in maximum number of screens. It is further observed that the rationale behind mega budget movies not competing with other movies is that the producers would have lesser risk and would be able to earn better profit/ return on investment. Therefore, such decision, which is a result of market outcome, appears to be a legitimate business decision rather than an anti-competitive practice.

Full Text of Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The information in the present matter has been filed by Shri Kshitiz Arya and Shri Purushottam Anand (hereinafter, the ‘Informants’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) against Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘OP-1’), Bhansali Productions (hereinafter, ‘OP-2’), Ms Twinkle Khanna (hereinafter, ‘OP-3’), Kriarj Entertainment Private Limited (hereinafter, ‘OP-4’), Side Films India Limited (hereinafter, OP-5’), Cape of Good Films Private Limited (hereinafter, ‘OP-6’) and Hope Productions Private Limited (hereinafter, ‘OP-7’) alleging violation of the provision of Section 3(3) of the Act.

2. The Informants are stated to be advocates and the OPs are engaged in production of movies. OP-1 and OP-2 are the producers of the movie ‘Padmavat’ and OP-3 to OP-7 are the producers of the movie ‘Padman’. The primary grievance of the Informants relate to collusion of the filmmakers with respect to sharing of the market amongst themselves by allocating different time for release of their films.

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
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031