Mr. Y, the Informant filed an application under the Competition Act, 2002 ('Act'). He alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act by M/s PQR Limited, the Opposite Party, by virtue of controlling more than half of

The fact of the given situation are similar to the case decided by Competition Commission of India (CCI) in the matter of Yogesh Pratap Singh (Informant) And PVR Ltd. (Opposite Party). CCI Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 In this case, the Hon'ble Competition Commission of India was of the view that the commercial wisdom of the exhibitors is largely governed by consumer demand and unless harm to competition is apparent, any intervention will only lead to undesirable consequence by taking away the autonomy of such undertaking and substituting the decision of such entity by the decision of the regulator. In the realm of competition law, it is widely understood that firms have an autonomy to choose their trading partners as long as the exercise of such autonomy does not affect the fair functioning of the markets. The Commission in its various orders has upheld the freedom enjoyed by the enterprises in the market subject to compliance of the provisions of the Act. Hon'ble Commission is of the view that there must be autonomy available to the exhibitors to deal with movies the way they want, in alignment with their business requirements and subject to provisions of the Act. In this vein, nobody can ask for an absolute right to deal with a particular business. Similarly, there is no absolute right of refusal. This will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, the right to choose a movie for exhibition lies with Opposite Party and this freedom cannot be curtailed by compelling it to exhibit the movie of the Informant unless and until it causes any harm to competition. CCI is of the opinion that, prima facie, as there appears no discernible competition concern in the matter, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to delve into allegations of abuse of dominant position which requires delineation of relevant market. Accordingly, the Commission does not deem it necessary to delineate the relevant market and undertake further assessment thereupon. With regard to applicability of Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act), the Commission is of the view that the existence of an agreement/arrangement between the parties is a sine qua non which aspect is neither captured in the Information nor any material evidence given in relation thereto. Further, the Commission notes that the mere fact that the Opposite Party is vertically integrating itself with film production does not per se amount to any contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act. In view of the above case, it can be said that the appeal of Mr. Y may not be allowed before Competition Commission of India.