Yogesh Pratap Singh Vs PVR Ltd. (Competition Commission of India)
PVR cleared of anti-competitive charges by Competition Commission in Yogesh Pratap Singh case. Analysis of allegations and Commission’s findings.
PVR Found Not Guilty of Anti-Competitive Practices in Preferential Treatment for Films by Powerful Production Houses
Introduction: The Competition Commission of India recently concluded its inquiry into allegations made by Mr. Yogesh Pratap Singh against PVR Ltd., accusing the company of engaging in anti-competitive practices in the film exhibition market. The order, issued under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002, sheds light on the details of the case and the Commission’s findings.
Background: Mr. Yogesh Pratap Singh, a lawyer, novelist, script-writer, and filmmaker, filed a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, alleging that PVR Ltd., a major player in the film exhibition industry in India, abused its dominant position. The Informant claimed that PVR favored films produced by powerful production houses, creating barriers for independent filmmakers like himself.
Allegations: The Informant made several key allegations against PVR:
- Special Treatment: PVR was accused of according special treatment to films from large production houses, resulting in preferential treatment, such as playing multiple trailers for free, extensive promotional efforts, and significant screen allocation.
- Lack of Transparency: PVR was alleged to have undisclosed commercial policies regarding screen allocation, release parameters, and relative placement of films by independent filmmakers and large production houses.
- Vertical Integration: The Informant contended that PVR, through its group company, engaged in film production and distribution, creating a vertical integration that discriminated against independent filmmakers.
- Violation of Other Laws: The Informant also claimed that PVR violated various laws, including environmental and municipal regulations.
Commission’s Analysis and Findings:
The Commission considered the Informant’s claims and PVR’s response before reaching its conclusions:
