Mumbai: The Bombay high court has directed the Competition Commission of India (CCI) not to take coercive action against three broadcasters - Asianet Star Communications, Disney Broadcasting (India), and Star India in furtherance of an order initiating investigation against such companies. A bench of justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar passed the judgement, according to Bar and Bench report on Friday.
The court also directed the petitioners to furnish to the director general of CCI the documentary material called for in response to the queries in furtherance of the order, on a without prejudice and no-equities basis.
The director general was also ordered to keep the information collected by him confidential as required by law until the next hearing date.
The bench passed the order in writ petitions filed by the three petitioners challenging an order of CCI passed on 28 February directing its director general to initiate investigation under Section 26 of the Competition Act based on a complaint by Asianet Network Digital.
Asianet is in the business of distribution of TV channels to customers through local cable operators predominantly in Kerala. It had contended in its complaint that broadcasters such as the petitioners, must not have discriminatory pricing in commercial contracts with multi-service operators (MSOs) such as Asianet.
In the complaint, Asianet referred to the regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) and the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), which prohibits discriminatory in commercial contracts with MSOs.
Asianet stated that the petitioners, by abusing their position of dominance, provided significant discounts to a direct competitor through allied agreements that apparently offered a cashback system. The petitioners intended to bypass the Trai/TDSAT set-caps or upper limits with an intent to provide unfair advantage to Asianet's competitors.
In view of this, CCI ordered the director general to conduct an investigation and submit a report within 60 days. The same was challenged before the high court.
