legal updates - mdp & partners nonconventional energy sources etc., contrary to the electricity...
TRANSCRIPT
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
MDP HIGHLIGHTS 1
EXCHANGE CONTROL LAWS
3
SECURITIES LAWS 5
PHARMA 11
COMPETITION LAWS
12
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
12
January, 2013
LEGAL UPDATES
MDP & Partners advised Mswipe in raising Series A funding from Matrix and Axis Bank
Mswipe Technologies engaged in the business of mobile
enabled POS service, raised Series A funding with investments
from Matrix Capital Partners. MDP & Partners’ team led by Mr.
Amit Sirsikar, Partner and assisted by Mr. Devang Kanakia,
Associate, advised Mswipe Technologies in respect of the
private equity transaction and facilitated completion of the
funding round.
Page 1 MDP & Partners
MDP HIGHLIGHTS
*Private Circulation Only
MDP represented Tata Motors Limited, Indian Wind Power Association Maharashtra State Council and Serum Institute of India Limited before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission to challenge Commercial Circulars issued by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The State Distribution Company viz; Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co. Ltd. (“MSEDCL”) issued two Commercial Circulars
Nos. 147 and 155 dated September 30, 2011 and January 23,
2012, respectively. The Commercial Circulars contained certain
provisions pertaining to the tariff terms and conditions including
billing, levy of charges, providing generation credit to
nonconventional energy sources etc., contrary to the Electricity
Act, 2003, Regulations which had far-reaching consequences not
in line with the present regulatory regime.
Some of the Wind Turbine Generators (“WTGs”) including Tata Motors Limited (“TML”), Indian Wind Power Association Maharashtra State Council (“IWPA MSC”), and Serum Institute of India Limited (“Serum”), Enercon India Limited and Ushdev International Limited aggrieved by such Commercial Circulars filed a petition before the State Regulatory Body viz; Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (“MERC”) to set aside the Commercial
Page 2 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
Circulars. At direction of MERC, Maharashtra Electricity Development Agency was also
impleaded as party being the apex body in the State for harnessing clean and renewable
energy.
WTGs incurred huge losses due to delay in issuance of credit reports and open access
permissions by the State Discom. Pursuant to issuance of Commercial Circulars, State Discom
also issued bills withdrawing incentives granted to WTGs. Reduction in contract demand in
respect of some of the open access consumers also led to termination of power procurement
contracts between open access consumers and WTGs. MERC had granted interim orders in
the petitions directing status quo ante prior to issuance of Commercial Circulars to avoid the
chaos created by Commercial Circulars.
MERC pronounced Final Order on January 3, 2013 granting reliefs to the petitioners. The
State Discom has been directed to modify various clauses of the Commercial Circulars which
were not in consonance with the existing provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Open
Access Regulations framed by MERC. MERC confirms that State Discom is not relieved from
its Universal Service Obligation to supply electricity in respect of open access consumers.
This order has given the necessary reliefs to WTGs to encourage harnessing green energy
and may help in regaining Maharashtra’s position in development of clean energy which has
slipped in recent past. Dipali Sheth, Partner of MDP & Partners along with Dhwani Mehta,
Senior Associate appeared on behalf of Serum. MDP & Partners also represented TML with
Counsel Mr. M.G. Ramachandran and Ms. Swapna Seshadri and IWPA MSC with Counsel Mr.
Harinder Toor.
MDP represented Konkola Copper Mines PLC (Zambia) in arbitration proceedings before International Chamber of Commerce
Konkola Copper Mines PLC (Zambia) filed arbitration
proceedings before International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC) relating to the disputes with M/s Stewarts and Lloyds
of India Limited, a Company based in Kolkata. The dispute
relates to the supply of defective Pipes by Stewarts and
Lloyds to Konkola Copper Mines. The Sole Arbitrator
appointed under the ICC Rules Mr. Alan J. Thambiayah
passed an award on 9th January, 2013 awarding an amount
of USD 3.4 Million in favour of the Konkola Copper Mines
PLC (Zambia). Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Managing Partner and Ms.
Jaisry Mani, Associate of MDP & Partners, represented
Konkola Copper Mines PLC (Zambia).
MDP & Partners
Page 3 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd filed a suit against its employee Mr. Joy
Cherookaren for embezzlement and siphoning off funds for
injunction to restrain the employee from transferring or creating any
third party rights in respect of the shares and other assets of the
company. The City Civil Court Dindoshi passed an order on 27th
December, 2012 to restrain the said Mr. Joy Cherookaren from
transferring the said assets.
MDP represented Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Ltd in a suit filed against their employee
EXCHANGE CONTROL LAWS
External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy – Non-Banking Financial Company – Infrastructure Finance Companies (NBFC-IFCs)
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in India - No issue of equity shares against import of second hand machines
As per circular number RBI/2010-11/586 A. P. (DIR Series) Circular
No.74 dated June 30, 2011, it had been decided to permit issue of
equity shares / preference shares under the Government route of
the FDI scheme for certain categories of transactions one of
which is import of capital goods/ machineries / equipments
(including second-hand machineries). This category has been
amended to exclude second-hand machineries.
Circular No. RBI/ 2012-13 /367 A.P.
(DIR Series) Circular No. 69
January 7, 2013
The ECB limit for NBFC-IFCs under the automatic route has been
enhanced from 50 % of their owned funds to 75 % of their owned
funds, including the outstanding ECBs. NBFC-IFCs desirous of
availing ECBs beyond 75 % of their owned funds would require the
prior approval of the Reserve Bank and will be considered under
the approval route. The hedging requirement for currency risk has
been reduced from 100 per cent of their exposure to 75 per cent
of their exposure.
RBI/2012-13/375 A. P. (DIR Series) Circular No.74 January 10, 2013
MDP & Partners
Page 4 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
Guidelines for Issue of Commercial Paper (CP)
RBI 2012-13/358 IDMD.PCD.
07 /14.01.02/2012-13
January 01, 2013
The Reserve Bank of India has set out guidelines for the issue of
Commercial Paper (“CP”). The salient features of the guidelines
are:
Companies, primary dealers and financial institutions are
permitted to raise short term resources through CP within the
umbrella limits specified in this circular.
CP shall be issued as a ‘stand alone’ product.
Banks and financial institutions may choose to provide stand-
by assistance/credit, back-stop facility etc. by way of credit
enhancement for a CP issue.
Non-bank entities (including corporates) may provide
unconditional and irrevocable guarantee for credit
enhancement for CP issue.
The aggregate amount of CP that can be issued by an issuer shall at all times be within the
limit as approved by its Board of Directors or the quantum indicated by a Credit Rating
Agency (“CRA”) for the specified rating, whichever is lower.
Individuals, banks, other corporate bodies (registered or incorporated in India) and
unincorporated bodies, Non-Resident Indians and Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) shall
be eligible to invest in CP.
CP shall be issued in the form of a promissory note and held in physical form or in a
dematerialized form through any of the depositories approved by and registered with SEBI.
All RBI regulated entities can deal in and hold CP only in dematerialised form through such
depositories.
CP shall be issued in denominations of Rs. 5 lakh and multiples thereof. The amount
invested by a single investor should not be less than Rs. 5 lakh (face value).
CP shall be issued for maturities between a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of up to one
year from the date of issue.
Every issuer must appoint an Issuing and Paying Agent (“IPA”) for issuance of CP.
Issuers may buyback the CP issued by them to the investors before maturity.
MDP & Partners
Page 5 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy – Repayment of Rupee loans and/or fresh Rupee capital expenditure – USD 10 billion scheme - Indian companies in the hotel sector included
SECURITIES LAWS
RBI/2012-13/387 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.78 January 21, 2013
Regulation 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Takeover Regulations, 2011 exempts certain types of
acquisitions from the obligation of making an open offer under regulation 3 and regulation
4, one of them being “persons named as promoters in the shareholding pattern filed by the
target company in terms of the listing agreement or [the takeover] regulations for not less
than three years prior to the proposed acquisition.”
SEBI clarified stating that even though one of the transferees had not satisfied the 3-year
holding period requirement, the exemption had been made available to it as the condition
of 3 years shareholding by the transferees prior to the proposed acquisition would be
deemed to be fulfilled in case all the transferees collectively hold shares for a period of 3
years prior to the proposed acquisition provided the other conditions for availing the
exemption are fulfilled.
CFD/ PC/ IG/ CB/ 23756/12, October 25, 2012
As per the extant guidelines, Indian companies in the
manufacturing and infrastructure sector (as defined under the
extant ECB policy), which are consistent foreign exchange
earners, are allowed to avail of ECBs for repayment of
outstanding Rupee loan(s) availed of from the domestic banking
system and / or for fresh Rupee capital expenditure. On a review,
it has been decided to include Indian companies in the hotel
sector (with a total project cost of INR 250 crore or more),
irrespective of geographical location as eligible borrowers under
this scheme.
Informal Guidance to M/s Weizmann Forex Limited The informal guidance issued to Weizmann Forex Ltd. by SEBI
was related to the question whether the proposed transfer of
shares among promoters was exempt from the mandatory open
offer requirements under Regulation 10(1)(a)(ii) of the SEBI
(Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations,
2011, (“Takeover Regulations, 2011”). Weizmann Forex Ltd.
was the target company which was previously unlisted bearing
the name Chanakya Holdings Ltd. Overall restructuring of the
Weizmann group was carried out whereby in the process of
restructuring Weizmann Forex Ltd.’s shares were listed on the
stock exchanges. The promoters of Weizmann Forex desired to
transfer certain shares of Weizmann Forex Ltd. among
themselves and hence approached SEBI for informal guidance.
Page 6 MDP & Partnersz
MDP & Partners Legal Updates
CIR/IMD/FIIC/1/2013
January 01, 2013
Debt Allocation Mechanism for FII
Pursuant to this circular with immediate effect, in order to
provide operational flexibility to the FIIs/ sub-accounts which
did not hold any debt investment limits as on January 03,
2012 and purchased debt investment limits after January 03,
2012, a cumulative re-investment facility to the extent of 50%
of their maximum debt holding at any time during the year
2013 has been permitted. In terms of the SEBI circular dated
January 03, 2012 the re-investment facility for the FIIs/ sub-
accounts having debt limit prior to January 03, 2012, will be
available till December 31, 2013. The FIIs which do not hold
any debt investments as on December 31 of the previous
calendar year, are now entitled to avail the re-investment
facility during each calendar year. Further, from January 01, 2014 the re-investment facility
as indicated in the SEBI circular CIR/IMD/FIIC/22/2012 dated November 07, 2012 would be
available during each calendar year to the FIIs holding debt investments as on December 31
of the previous calendar year. The re-investment period as set out earlier, i.e. 5 working
days for Government Debt and 15 working days for Corporate Debt continues to be
applicable.
CIR/CFD/DIL/2/2013,
January 02, 2013
Clarification on Clause 36 of the Equity Listing Agreement
Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement of the stock exchanges
states that:
“The Issuer will intimate to the Stock Exchanges, where the
company is listed immediately of events such as strikes,
lock outs, closure on account of power cuts, etc. and all
events which will have a bearing on the performance /
operations of the company as well as price sensitive
information both at the time of occurrence of the event
and subsequently after the cessation of the event in order
to enable the security holders and the public to appraise
the position of the Issuer and to avoid the establishment of
a false market in its securities. In addition, the Issuer will
furnish to Exchange on request such information
concerning the Issuer as the Exchange may reasonably
require”.
It has been clarified by SEBI that all the events or material information which will have a
bearing on the performance / operations of the company as well as price sensitive
information shall be first disseminated to the stock exchanges as required under Clause 36
of the Listing Agreement.
MDP & Partners
Page 7 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
Amendments to SEBI (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999 and Equity Listing Agreement To prohibit the entities from framing any employee benefit
schemes dealing in its own securities with the object of
inflating or causing fluctuation in the price of the securities by
engaging in fraudulent and unfair trade practices, SEBI has
specified certain listing conditions by inserting Clause 35C in
the Equity Listing Agreement which states as follows:
“35C. (i) The issuer agrees that all the employee benefit
schemes involving the securities of the company shall be in
compliance with SEBI (Employee Stock Option Schemes and
Employee Stock Purchase Schemes) Guidelines, 1999 and
any other guidelines, regulations etc. framed by SEBI in this
regard.
(ii) The issuer further agrees that all the employee benefit schemes already framed and
implemented by the company involving dealing in the securities of the company, before the
insertion of this clause shall be aligned with and made to conform to SEBI (Employee Stock
Option Schemes and Employee Stock Purchase Schemes) Guidelines, 1999 by June 30, 2013.”
Further, all references to “Companies (Passing of the Resolution by Postal Ballot) Rules 2001”
in clause 35B of the Listing Agreement have to be replaced with “Companies (Passing of the
Resolution by Postal Ballot) Rules 2011”.
In respect of those companies, which have already framed and implemented before the date
of this circular any employee benefit schemes involving dealing in the securities of the
company, which are not in accordance with SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines, such companies
are required to:
1. give the details of their schemes to the Stock Exchanges within 30 days from date of this
circular, in the format provided with the circular; and
2. align any existing employee benefit schemes with SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines on or
before June 30, 2013.
In view of the above, a new clause 22B has been inserted in SEBI (ESOS and ESPS) Guidelines
1999 with immediate effect and states that:
“No ESOS/ESPS shall involve acquisition of securities from the secondary market."
CIR/CFD/DIL/3/2013,
January 17, 2013
MDP & Partners
Page 8 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013
i) Persons giving general comments in good faith in regard to trends in the financial
or securities market or the economic situation provided such comments do not
specify any particular securities or investment product.
ii) Persons providing advice exclusively in areas like insurance and pension products
provided they are regulated by sectoral regulators.
iii) Professionals such as lawyers, Chartered Accountants etc., providing advice
incidental to their professional services.
iv) Stock Brokers, Sub-brokers, Portfolio Managers and Merchant Bankers registered
with SEBI providing investment advice incidental to their primary activity. Such
Intermediaries under SEBI are however required to comply with obligations under
these Regulations such as acting in fiduciary responsibility, risk profiling etc.
v) AMFI registered distributors providing investment advice incidental to their
primary activity.
vi) The Fund Manager of a Mutual Fund or Alternative Investment Fund.
The banks or body corporates which also offer distribution, execution or referral services
will be required to offer investment advisory services through a subsidiary or a Separately
Identifiable Department or Division (SIDD). Such a SIDD will be required to be clearly
segregated from other activities.
The investment advisor shall not obtain any remuneration or compensation from any
person other than from the client being advised. However, for a bank or body corporate
having a distribution, referral or execution business, it would be necessary to keep the
investment advisory services segregated from such activities and to make disclosures to
the clients being advised about any remuneration or compensation received by it and any
of its associates for the distribution, referral or execution services.
SEBI has notified the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations,
2013 (“Investment Advisers Regulations”) thereby providing a
framework for registration and regulation of Investment
Advisors. The salient features of the Investors Advisers
Regulations are:
All individuals, body corporate and partnership firms engaged
in the business of providing investment advice to investors for
consideration, including financial planners are required to be
registered and regulated under these Regulations. Any person
who holds himself as an investment advisor shall also fall
under the purview of these Regulations save and except the
following persons who have been exempted:
LAD-NRO/GN/2012-13/31/1778
January 21, 2013
MDP & Partners
Page 9 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
The regulations provide for code of conduct, fiduciary duties, record keeping, risk
profiling of the clients and also deal with the issue of suitability and appropriateness of
the advice.
Requirements relating to experience, qualification, certification and net worth/ net
assets have been prescribed for a person to act as an investment advisor. Initially, SEBI
will directly register and regulate the Investment Advisors.
Guidelines on Identification of Beneficial Ownership
He who exercises control through ownership or who has a controlling ownership
interest.
Controlling ownership interest means ownership of/entitlement to:
i. more than 25% of shares or capital or profits of the juridical person, where the
juridical person is a company;
ii. more than 15% of the capital or profits of the juridical person, where the juridical
person is a partnership; or
iii. more than 15% of the property or capital or profits of the juridical person, where
the juridical person is an unincorporated association or body of individuals.
The identity of a person where control is exercised through voting rights, agreement,
arrangements or in any other manner.
The person holding the position of senior managing official where no natural person is
identified.
B. For client which is a trust:
Where the client is a trust, the intermediary is required to identify and verify the identity of
such persons, through the identity of the settler of the trust, the trustee, the protector, the
beneficiaries having 15% or more interest in the trust and any other natural person
exercising ultimate control through a chain of control or ownership.
C. Exemption in case of listed companies:
It is not necessary to identify and verify the identity of any shareholder or beneficial owner
of companies that are listed on stock exchange or is a majority-owned subsidiary of such a
company.
CIR/MIRSD/2/2013, January 24, 2013
SEBI has set out guidelines on identification of beneficial
ownership, which are to be followed by intermediaries and are
as below:
A. For clients other than individuals or trusts:
Where the client is a company, partnership or unincorporated
association/body of individuals, reasonable measures have to
be taken by the intermediary to verify the identity of such
persons, through the following information:
MDP & Partners
Page 10 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
D. Applicability for foreign investors:
Intermediaries dealing with Foreign Investors, Foreign Institutional Investors, Sub Accounts
and Qualified Foreign Investors, may be guided by the clarifications issued vide SEBI
circular CIR/MIRSD/11/2012 dated September 5, 2012 for the identification of beneficial
ownership of the client.
E. Implementation:
Intermediaries have to review their Know Your Client (KYC) and Anti- Money Laundering
(AML) policies as per the contents of this circular.
Comprehensive guidelines on Offer for Sale (OFS) of Shares by Promoters through the Stock Exchange Mechanism In order to make the OFS framework more economical, efficient
and transparent the guidelines on Offer for Sale (OFS) of Shares
by Promoters through the Stock Exchange Mechanism issued
previously have been revised as follows:
Sub-para (b)(ii) laying down the eligibility criteria has been
replaced with: “All promoters/promoter group entities of top
100 companies by market capitalisation in any of the last four
completed quarters, market capitalisation being calculated as
average market capitalisation in a quarter.”
Definition of ‘Indicative Price’ has been revised to mean the
volume weighted average price of all the valid bids.
CIR/MRD/DP/04/2013, January 25, 2013
Henceforth, only orders shall be placed during trading hours and para 5(d)(iii) has been
omitted.
Para 5(e)(i) which provides for order placement has been replaced. Now onwards the
orders which shall be valid in the OFS window, separately created are:
(i) Orders with 100% of margin paid upfront by institutional investors and non-
institutional investors.
(ii) Orders without paying upfront margin by institutional investors only. Such orders
can only be modified by making upward revision
Cumulative bid quantity will now be made available online to the market throughout
the trading session at specific intervals in respect of orders with 100% upfront margin
and separately in respect of orders placed without any upfront margin. Indicative price
will now be disclosed to market throughout the trading session. The indicative price
shall be calculated based on all valid bids/orders.
MDP & Partners
Page 11 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
PHARMA
Para 6(a) which provides for risk management has been replaced. Clearing Corporation will
be collecting 100% margin in cash from non-institutional investors. In case of institutional
investors who place orders/bids with 100% of margin upfront, custodian confirmation shall
be done within trading hours. In case of institutional investors who place orders without
upfront margin, custodian confirmation shall be done as per the existing rules for
secondary market transactions. The funds collected shall neither be utilized against any
other obligation of the trading member nor co-mingled with other segments.
Para 6(b) has also been revised to now state that ‘in case of order/bid modification or
cancellation, such funds shall be released/ collected on a real time basis by the clearing
corporation’.
Para 8(i)(b) has also been revised and replaced. Henceforth, settlement for institutional
orders/bids and for institutional orders with 100% upfront margin shall take place on T+1
day. In case of orders/bids of institutional investors with no margin, settlement shall be as
per the existing rules for secondary market.
Para 8(ii)(a) which deals with handling of default pay-in has been replaced with: ‘In case of
default in pay-in by any investor, 10% of the order value shall be charged as penalty from
the investor and collected from the broker and shall be credited to the Investor Protection
Fund.’
All other conditions for sale of shares through OFS framework shall be as per SEBI circular
dated July 18, 2012
Cancellation of permission/ license in case an applicant/ manufacturer who fails to launch their product for marketing in the country within a period of six months from obtaining the permission / license from CDSCO.
F.No.12-01/12-DC Pt-127 January 10, 2013
Rule 122A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 makes it
mandatory for the approval of the licensing authority to be
obtained in order to manufacture a new drug. Schedule Y to the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, requires periodic safety update
reports (PSURs) of new drugs to be submitted every six months for
the first two years after approval of the drug is granted and also
requires the drug to be marketed. The above stated requirements
are not being complied with by the manufacturers. Therefore, in
order to ensure complete assessment of safety and efficacy of the
new drug and keeping in mind the interest of the public, it has now
been made mandatory for the applicant/manufacturer to launch
the product for marketing in the country within a period of 6
months from obtaining the permission/license from CDSCO. Failure
to do so will lead to cancellation of the permission/license.
MDP & Partners
Page 12 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
COMPETITION LAW
M/s. Shri Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited v/s PVR Pictures Limited & 17 others.
January 10, 2013
Specified Banking Companies exempted from application of provisions of sections 5 & 6 of the Competition Act, 2002 for 5 years In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 54 of
the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003) (“Competition Act”), the
Central Government has exempted banking companies in respect
of which the Central Government has issued a notification under
section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), from
the application of the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the
Competition Act in public interest for a period of five years from
the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
Notification No. SO 93(E) [F.NO.5/63/2011-CS] January 8, 2013
The Informant has alleged that a distributor who refuses to become a member of the
association and/ or refuses to register his film with the association is not allowed to distribute
and exhibit its film in the territory which is regulated by such association. Consequently, the
cinema exhibitors are unwilling to take the risk of exhibiting the film of a distributor who is not
a member of the association or whose film is not registered with the Association.
The consequence of the impugned action of the Opposite Parties (excluding PVR) is denial of
market access to the Informant under section 4 (2) (c) of the Competition Act by denying
registration of the film in the respective territories of the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 17. The
Informant has also alleged that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 17 have also contravened section
3 by entering into an anti-competitive agreement with members with a view to limit or control
the production, supply, market or provision of services.
The Competition Commission of India (“Commission”) has held that as the informant did not
provided any evidence against these associations, it is held that Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 18
have not imposed any restriction on the release of the film and, as such, their conduct need
not attract the attention of the Commission.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
This information was filed by Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Limited
(“Informant”) u/s 19 (1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002
(“Competition Act”) against M/s. PVR Pictures Limited (“PVR”) and
17 others (PVR and such 17 others are collectively referred to as the
“Opposite Parties”) alleging inter alia contravention of the
provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act by PVR and
the others. The practice prevalent in the film-industry is for a
distributor to register a film through the distributors’ association for
the territory in which the distributor is carrying on business. The
distributor is allowed to book theatres for release of the feature
films only after such registration.
MDP & Partners
Page 13 MDP & Partners
Legal Updates
M/s Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt. Ltd vs Telangana Telugu Film Distribution Association & 4 others
January 10, 2013
The present information has been filed under section 19 (1) (a) of the
Competition Act by M/s. Cinergy Independent Film Services Private
Limited (“Informant”) against M/s. Telangana Telugu Film Distributors
Association and 4 others (“Opposite Parties”) alleging inter alia
contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition
Act.
The Informant alleges that the Opposite Parties make it compulsory for
every film distributor to become their member and/or register his/its
film with them before the exhibition of such film. On account of the
above, the cinema exhibitors are unwilling to undertake the risk of
exhibiting the film of a distributor who is not a member of the Opposite
Parties or whose film is not registered with them.
The Commission has held that the compulsory registration of the film with the concerned trade
associations is anti – competitive in terms of the provisions of section 3 of the Competition Act.
The Commission observed that the acts and conduct of the association have caused
appreciable adverse effect on competition and the Commission further directed the association
to cease and desist from the practices of pressurizing the distributors to settle the monetary
disputes with its members.
It is alleged that the Opposite Parties acted malafidely and arbitrarily in boycotting the film
‘Mausam’ with an effort to secure a claim of their member. The Informant has alleged that the
actions of the Opposite Parties have contravened the provisions of section 3 and section 4 of
the Competition Act. Upon hearing the Opposite Parties and considering the DG’s report, the
Commission held that the Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 have contravened the provisions of
section 3 (1) read with section 3 (3) of the Competition Act. The Commission directed the
Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to cease and desist from the practices of pressurizing the
distributors to settle the monetary disputes with its members.
*This legal update is not intended to be a form of solicitation or advertising. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate thereafter. No person should act on such information without appropriate professional advice based on the circumstances of a particular situation. This update is intended for private circulation only.
MDP & Partners Advocates & Solicitors
1st floor, Udyog Bhavan, 29, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001 Tel: +91 22 6686 8900 I Fax: + 91 22 6686 8989
Email:- [email protected] I Website: www.mdppartners.com