Disney Broadcasting (India) ... vs Competition Commission Of India ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9329 Bom

                                                                   3755.22-wp+.docx


BASAVRAJ                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GURAPPA                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PATIL
Digitally signed by
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3755 OF 2022
PATIL
Date: 2022.09.16
17:44:19 +0530            Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd.
                          a company incorporated under the
                          Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
                          office at Star House, Urmi Estate 95,
                          Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W),
                          Mumbai-400013                                    ..... Petitioner

                                           VERSUS

                      1 Competition Commission of India
                        Represented by its Secretary, 9th Floor,
                        Office Block-1, Kidwai Nagar (East),
                        New Delhi - 110023, India

                      2 Asianet Digital Network Pvt. Ltd.
                        a company incorporated under the
                        Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
                        office at 2A, II floor, Carnival Technopark,
                        Leela         Infopark,          Technopark,
                        Kazhakkoottam, Karyavattom,
                        Trivendrum 695 581, Kerala

                      3 Star India Pvt. Ltd.
                        a company incorporated under the
                        Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
                        office at Star House, Urmi Estate, 95,
                        Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
                        Mumbai - 400013

                      4 Disney Broadcasting (I) Pvt. Ltd.
                        (Formerly Disney Broadcasting (India)
                        Ltd.) a company incorporated under the
                        Companies Act, 1956 having registered
                        office at Star House, Urmi Estate, 95,
                        Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
                        Mumbai - 400013                                    .... Respondents



                      Basavraj                                                        1/24
                                              3755.22-wp+.docx


               WRIT PETITION NO. 3860 OF 2022

    Star India Pvt. Ltd.
    a company incorporated under the
    Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
    office at Star House, Urmi Estate, 95,
    Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
    Mumbai - 400013                                  ..... Petitioner

                    VERSUS

1 Competition Commission of India
  Represented by its Secretary, 9th Floor,
  Office Block-1, Kidwai Nagar (East),
  New Delhi - 110023, India

2 Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd.
  a company incorporated under the
  Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
  2A, II floor, Carnival Technopark, Leela
  Infopark, Technopark, Kazhakkoottam,
  Karyavattom,
  Trivendrum 695 581, Kerala

3 Disney Broadcasting (I) Pvt. Ltd.
  (Formerly Disney Broadcasting (India)
  Ltd.) a company incorporated under the
  Companies Act, 1956 having registered
  office at Star House, Urmi Estate, 95,
  Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
  Mumbai - 400013

4 Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd.
  a company incorporated under the
  Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
  office at Star House, Urmi Estate 95,
  Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W),
  Mumbai-400013                                      .... Respondents




Basavraj                                                        2/24
                                              3755.22-wp+.docx


               WRIT PETITION NO. 3845 OF 2022

    Disney Broadcasting (I) Pvt. Ltd.
    (Formerly Disney Broadcasting (India)
    Ltd.) a company incorporated under the
    Companies Act, 1956 having registered
    office at Star House, Urmi Estate, 95,
    Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
    Mumbai - 400013                                  ..... Petitioner

                    VERSUS

1 Competition Commission of India
  Represented by its Secretary, 9th Floor,
  Office Block-1, Kidwai Nagar (East),
  New Delhi - 110023, India

2 Asianet Digital Network Pvt Ltd.
  a company incorporated under the
  Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
  2A, II floor, Carnival Technopark, Leela
  Infopark, Technopark, Kazhakkoottam,
  Karyavattom,
  Trivendrum 695 581, Kerala

3 Star India Pvt. Ltd.
  a company incorporated under the
  Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
  office at Star House, Urmi Estate, 95,
  Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel,
  Mumbai - 400013

4 Asianet Star Communications Pvt Ltd.
  a company incorporated under the
  Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
  office at Star House, Urmi Estate 95,
  Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W),
  Mumbai-400013                                      .... Respondents




Basavraj                                                        3/24
                                             3755.22-wp+.docx


APPEARANCE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3845/2022

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneha Jain,
Mr. Thomas George, Mr. Kuber Mahajan, Ms. Swikriti Singhania, Mr.
I/b. Saikrishna & Associates for the Petitioner

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Bakhru,
Mr.Avinash Amarnath, Mr. Vishnu Suresh, Mr. Nikhil Gupta, I/b.
Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.2

APPEARANCE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3860/2022

Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas,
Ms. Nafisa Khandeparkar, Ms.Ambareen Mujawar, Mr. Varun
Thakur, Mr. Akshay Agarwal, Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Mr. Thomas George
I/b. AZB & Partners for the Petitioner

Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Bakhru,
Mr. Avinash Amarnath, Mr. Nikhil Gupta, Mr. Vishnu Suresh I/b.
Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.2.

APPEARANCE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3755/2022

Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas,
Ms. Nafisa Khandeparkar, Ms. Ambareen Mujawar, Mr. Varun
Thakur, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Sneha Jain, Ms. Swikriti Singhania,
Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu I/b. AZB & Partners for the Petitioner

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Bakhru,
Mr.Avinash Amarnath, Mr. Vishnu Suresh, Mr. Nikhil Gupta, I/b.
Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent No.2

Mr. Somasekhar Sundaresan a/w. Mr. Shubhabrata Chakraborti a/w.
Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Mr. Abhishek Banerjee and Mr. Vishwajit Deb
a/w. Mr. Hafeez Patanwala I/b. Juris Corp for Respondent No.1 in all
the Writ Petitions.

                      CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
                                 MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

           RESERVED ON           :     AUGUST 10, 2022

           PRONOUNCED ON         :     SEPTEMBER 16, 2022



Basavraj                                                       4/24
                                               3755.22-wp+.docx



JUDGMENT : (PER : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

1     These Writ Petitions are filed against the same order passed by

the Competition Commission of India (CCI). The Writ Petitions are

based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law and

to avoid rigmarole, are decided by the common judgment.

2 Asianet Digital Network (P) Ltd. (ADNPL) filed an information

under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act 2002 (Act 2002)

against Star India (P) Ltd. (SIPL), Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd.

(Disney) and Asianet Star Communications Pvt. Ltd. (Asianet Star)

alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act 2002.

The informant (Respondent No.2) claims to be a Multi System

Operator (MSO) engaged in business of providing digital TV services,

predominantly in Kerala. It also operates in Karnataka, Andra

Pradesh, Telangana and Odisha.

3 The case of ADNPL is that it received broadcasting signals

from SIPL for monetary consideration for the purpose of supplying

the channels of SIPL to customers and for the said purpose ADNPL

entered into an agreement with SIPL from time to time. It is averred

by the ADNPL that SIPL was providing a bouquet of channels to the

competitors of the ADNPL at lesser prices resulting into denial of

market access and also amounting to unfair / discriminatory pricing.

Basavraj                                                         5/24
                                                3755.22-wp+.docx

KCCL was getting the channels at about 30% of the MRP i.e. about

70% discount (special discounts upto 50% added with distribution

fee of 20%) whereas the maximum permissible discounts under the

New Regulatory Framework is capped at 35% i.e. minimum of 20%

distribution fees and other marketing discounts of maximum 15%

(combined, both capped at 35%). As per the allegations in the

information, SIPL chose an indirect way to provide these discounts

to circumvent the New Regulatory Framework by way of promotion

and advertisement payments to KCCL through high valued

advertising deals. The resultant impact was that the ADNPL was

constrained to price its channels at a higher price than that of KCCL

and ultimately pay the price by losing consumers consistently

whereas the KCCL gained new consumers. The ADNPL's subscriber

base fell from 14.5 lakh in April 2019 to 11.76 lakh in September

2021 while the subscriber base of KCCL went up from 21.3 lakh in

April 2019 to 29.35 lakh in September 2021. The alleged

discriminatory conduct of price discrimination between different

MSOs of SIPL resulted into significant loss in the consumer base of

ADNPL and as such, is the violation of the provision of Section 4(2)

(a)(ii) of the Act, 2002 as also in contravention of the provision of

Section 4(2)(c) of the Act 2002 due to discriminatory pricing and

denial of market access respectively.

Basavraj                                                          6/24
                                                 3755.22-wp+.docx



4     On the basis of the same, the Commission directed the Director

General (DG) to cause an investigation to be made into the matter

and submit an investigation report within a period of 60 days from

the date of receipt of the order. The Commission, purportedly

exercised its powers under Section 26(1) of the Act 2002.

5 The aforesaid order passed by the Commission resorting to

Section 26(1) the Act 2002 is assailed by the Petitioners in the

present Writ Petitions.

6 The Respondents raised preliminary objection of territorial

jurisdiction. We have heard the learned Senior Advocates and the

learned Advocates for the respective parties on the issue of

territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the Writ Petitions.

7 Mr. Somshekharan, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.1

submits that the abusive conduct pertains to the entire State of

Kerala and no part of cause of action arises in the State of

Maharashtra. The Petitioners pleadings on jurisdiction significantly

omits any reference to the State of Kerala being the relevant

geographical market under Section 19 of the Act 2002. The lis

pertains to a prima facie determination of abuse of dominance in the

State of Kerala on the part of the Petitioners along with its related

Basavraj 7/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

parties. The prima facie case relates to the alleged discriminatory

treatment of MSOs in the State of Kerala. The impugned order

explicitly delineates the relevant market as the market for provision

of broadcasting service in the State of Kerala. The Informant is

based in the State of Kerala. The consumer base is entirely in the

State of Kerala. The advertisement agreement has also been

executed in Kerala. No part of cause of action has arisen in the State

of Maharashtra entitling the Petitioners to file the Writ Petitions in

this Court.

8 The learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioners'

reference to CCI being a National Regulator is irrelevant. The

Application of the Competition Act in this case is to the geographical

market in the State of Kerala. Section 19 of the 2002 Act provides

that the relevant geographical market has to be identified in such

proceedings. The alleged anti competitive conduct is conduct in the

State of Kerala and not outside the State of Kerala. The

identification of the relevant geographical market or territoriality is

a statutory embedded feature in the Competition Act and is

foundational to any inquiry by the CCI under Section 4 of the Act

2002. Any investigation for abuse of dominant position by the CCI

requires the determination of "the relevant market" which in turn

requires the CCI to have due regard to "relevant geographical

Basavraj 8/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

market" and the "relevant product market". The effect of the

impugned order would not be felt beyond the State of Kerala. The

learned Advocate submits that the claim of the Petitioners that the

"substantial operations" as well as the registered office being in

Maharashtra would confer jurisdiction, is without legal basis. The

existence of operations outside the State of Kerala and the location

of the registered office without nexus to the cause of action, are of no

avail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Haribox

Swalram & Ors. 1 to submit that the Apex Court has held that the

location of the Petitioners' office or place of business or the fact that

it received notice at its office do not confer jurisdiction upon the High

Court. The learned Counsel further submits that the situs of the

Petitioners' office in Mumbai can never be the basis to invoke the

territorial jurisdiction of this Court over the matter relating to abuse

in the territory of the State of Kerala. Even a challenge to the

constitutional validity of a Central Act would not be maintainable in

New Delhi, merely because the seat of Union of India is in New Delhi

or because of the legislation being Central Act. To substantiate the

said contention, the learned Advocate relied on the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Vs. Union of

1 (2004) 9 SCC 786

Basavraj 9/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

India 2. The contention of the Petitioners that because payments

were received by the Petitioners in the bank account situated in

Maharashtra is also not relevant, as the present proceedings are not

about monetary claim for breach of the advertising agreement.

Even if the Petitioners received notice at its registered address, the

same would not confer territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan &

Ors. Vs. Swaika Properties & Anr. 3 The learned Counsel submits

that no part of cause of action has arisen within the State of

Maharashtra. The proceedings under Section 19(1) of the Act 2002

was initiated by the ADNPL in New Delhi. The CCI passed the

impugned order in New Delhi. The office of the Director General is at

New Delhi from where it would conduct the investigation. The

averments in the petition do not disclose that even part of

jurisdiction arises within the territorial jurisdiction of State of

Maharashtra and that only because the Petitioner has registered

office at Mumbai, would not be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed

by the learned Advocate on the judgment of the Apex in the Case of

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. 4

The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Union of

2 (2004) 6 SCC 254 3 (1985) 3 SCC 217 4 (1994) 4 SCC 711

Basavraj 10/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

India & Ors. s. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr. 5 to contend that in

order to confer jurisdiction on High Court under Article 226 (2) of

the Constitution, the facts which have bearing in the lis or dispute

involved in the case do not give any rise to the cause of action so as

to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.

9 The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, as such, submits

that this Court may not entertain the Writ Petition on the ground of

territorial jurisdiction.

10 We have heard the learned Senior Advocates and learned

Advocate for the Petitioners.

11 According to the learned Senior Advocates for the Petitioners,

the part of cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra and therefore,

these Petitions are maintainable under Article 226(2) of the

Constitution. The effective consequences of the impugned order are

felt by the Petitioners in Maharashtra and therefore the Petitions

challenging the impugned order can be filed before this Court. The

CCI is a National Regulatory having jurisdiction across India. The

present Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

seeking quashing of quasi judicial order and for other appropriate

writs. The agreements executed between the Petitioners and the

Informant ADNPL which form the subject matter of the complaint

5 (2002) 1 SCC 567

Basavraj 11/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

were in fact negotiated and sanctioned by the Petitioners' office

located within the State of Maharashtra. The payments under the

said agreements were received by the Petitioners in bank accounts

located in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner SIPL is owner of

television network with an extensive portfolio of 70 channels in

about 8 languages including substantial operations in Maharashtra.

Therefore, the effect of the impugned order will be felt by the

Petitioners all over India including entire State of Maharashtra. The

Petitioners also have their registered office located in Mumbai. A

part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Maharashtra.

The tenor of facts which constitute the Petitioners' cause of action

has arisen in State of Maharashtra within the territorial jurisdiction

of this Court. As such, the present Writ Petitions are maintainable

under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution.

12 It is submitted that even if seat of the Authority is outside

Maharashtra, the effect and consequences of the decision is felt

within the territorial limits of this Court, this Court would possess

the jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in

the case of Damomal Kauromal Raisingani Vs. Union of India 6

and in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. Vs. Competition

Commission of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No.8594 of 2017.

6 AIR 1967 Bom 355

Basavraj                                                         12/24
                                                   3755.22-wp+.docx



13    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relying upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of R.K.Singh Vs. Union of India

& Ors. 7 submits that the fact that a major portion of the

investigation of the case to be conducted at Mumbai was sufficient to

show that the Petition was maintainable. Further reliance is placed

on the judgment of this Court in the case of Willis India Insurance

Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Insurance Rgulatory and Development

Authority 8. It is submitted that in the said case the Petitioner's

registered office was located in Mumbai and running business

operations from Mumbai was sufficient to show that the Petitioner

was affected by the impugned order in Mumbai and Petition was thus

maintainable in this Court.

14 The learned Senior Advocate submits that the Apex Court in

the case of Shanti Devi Vs. Union of India 9 held that under Article

226 (2) of the Constitution, a Petition is maintainable if part of the

cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this

Court. According to the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner,

this Court certainly can exercise jurisdiction.

15         It is also contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the


7 2002 (3) MhLJ 561
8 2011 Vol.113 (3) Bom.L.R. 1115
9 (2020) 10 SCC 766

Basavraj                                                             13/24
                                                3755.22-wp+.docx

Petitioner that the reference is also made in the complaint to the

marketing arrangements with a few other MSOs operating in the

State of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka. The scope of

inquiry, as such, is not limited to the State of Kerala but two other

States also.

16    We have considered the submissions.


17    Jurisdiction connotes authority to decide.


18    The power conferred upon the High Court to issue directions,

orders or writs can be exercised by the High Court exercising

jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of

action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power. The

Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution can

issue writs detailed under clause 1 to the person or authority

situated beyond its territorial jurisdiction provided cause of action

wholly or partly arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the court

entertaining the Writ Petition.

19 The apex court, in the case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair

Vs. Narayanan Nair 10 observed as under:

"16. The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the

10 (2004) 3 SCC 277

Basavraj 14/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

immediate occasion for the action. In the wider senses, it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action".

17. In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) it has been stated as follows :

"Cause of action" has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. "Cause of action" has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action".

In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys (Supra) the Court

observed as under:

"Forum conveniens

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney 1941 SCC OnLine Cal.247, Madanlal Jalan Vs. Madanlal 1945 SCC OnLine Cal.145, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. 1997 CWN 122, S.S. Jain & Co. Vs. Union of India 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 306 and New Horizon Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1993 SCC OnLine Del 564."

Basavraj                                                          15/24
                                                    3755.22-wp+.docx


20      The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Chhotu

Pawar Vs. Collector, Raigad & Ors. 11 to which one of us (S.V.

Gangapurwala,J) was a party, observed as under:

18. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is sky high, but also has a regulation coming along under Article 226(2). The powers of this Court under Article 226 is sacrosanct. No statute or legislature can limit the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The constitution does not place fetter on exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. This Court would exercise its authority, power or jurisdiction within its territorial realm. This Court normally would not travel beyond its limits.

"19. Reading Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution, a petition under Article 226 can be entertained before any of the High Court :

i) Within whose territorial jurisdiction the person or authority against whom relief is sought resides or is situated.

ii) The cause of action in respect of which relief is sought under Article 226 is wholly or in part arisen.

20. A distinction shall have to be drawn between cause of action and right of action. The petitioners may possess a right of action to institute the proceedings. To file a proceeding before a particular Court at least fraction of cause of action ought to have arisen within the precincts of that Court.

21 The issue of territorial jurisdiction in entertaining the Writ

Petition revolves around Article 226(2) of the Constitution. It would

be appropriate to refer to 226(2) of the Constitution. The same

reads thus:

11   2020(6) Mh.L.J. 285

Basavraj                                                              16/24
                                               3755.22-wp+.docx

"226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs:

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."

22 The phraseology "cause of action" is broadly construed as

bundle of facts necessary for the party to prove before he can

succeed. The apex court in the case of Kusum Ingots (supra)

observed thus:

"9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceedings to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the Petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts.

10. Keeping in view the expressions used is Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter."

23 The Competent Commission of India is a National Regulatory

having jurisdiction all over India. However, only because it has

jurisdiction all over India, would not be sufficient for invoking the

jurisdiction by any High Court throughout the country. Perusal of

Basavraj 17/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

the complaint, the alleged commission of the anti competitive acts

pertain to the State of Kerala. "The geographical market" is

described under the CCI Act.

24 Place of work of the Petitioner and /or Respondent may not be

much relevant in deciding the jurisdictional aspect. The place of

residence of the Petitioner would not be relevant. However, what is

relevant is that the cause of action, wholly or in part arises within

the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The determinative factor is

the place of accrual of cause of action or part of cause of action.

25 The identification of the relevant geographical market or

territoriality is the statutory embodied feature in the Competition

Act and is a foundational to any inquiry by the CCI. The relevant

geographical market in the present case is within the State of Kerala

and not beyond the State of Kerala.

26 The facts which are not relevant or do not have bearing with

the litigation would not give rise to cause of action so as to confer

territorial jurisdiction. Reliance can be had to the judgment of the

apex court in the case of Union of India Vs. Adani Exports

(supra).

27     The agreements between the Petitioner and the Respondent


Basavraj                                                           18/24
                                                3755.22-wp+.docx

complainant pertain to the marketing and advertisement services

provided in the State of Kerala. As such, even if it is assumed, as

contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, that the

agreements were sanctioned and negotiated in the State of

Maharashtra, it will not be sufficient to give rise to the cause of

action, in view of the facts of the present case. The present dispute

between the parties is about the acts of commission and omission in

the State of Kerala. The complaint filed by the Respondent /

complainant before the CCI is that SIPL was providing a bouquet of

channels to the competitors of the complainant at a lesser price

resulting into denial of market access and also amounting to unfair

discriminating pricing within the State of Kerala. The geographic

territory was limited to the State of Kerala. The complainant's

business was affected in the State of Kerala. The agreement between

the complainant and the present Petitioners was for the

geographical area of the State of Kerala. Perusal of the entire

complaint filed before the CCI, it is abundantly clear that the

infringement alleged is in respect of business activity within the

geographical area of State of Kerala. Even if any orders are passed,

no part of business activity in State of Maharashtra would be

affected. In case of Union of India Vs. Adani Exports (Supra) the

Petitioners had filed Writ Petition before the Gujarat High Court

Basavraj 19/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

claiming benefit of passbook scheme under the Import Export Policy

in relation to the certain credits inputs on export of shrimps.

However, the Petitioners therein were stationed at Ahmedabad. The

passbook in question, the benefit of which the Respondents sought in

the petition was issued by the Authority stationed at Chennai. The

entries in the passbook under the scheme were to be made by the

Authorities at Chennai. The export of shrimps made by the

Petitioner therein and the import of the inputs, the benefits of which

the Respondents had sought in the Applications also were to be

made through Chennai. The Petitioners therein contended that they

are carrying on the business of export and export or that they are

receiving the export and import at Ahmedabad. Their documents

for payment of import and exports made / sent at Ahmedabad. The

apex court observed that these facts have no connection whatsoever

with the dispute that is involved in the petition. The fact that the

credit on duty claimed in respect of the exports that was made in

Chennai were handled by the Respondents at Ahmedabad have also

no connection whatsoever with the impugned action of the

Respondent therein. The non-grant and denial of credit in the

passbook having ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the

Petitioner at Ahmedabad would not also give rise to any cause of

action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate the actions complained

Basavraj 20/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

against the Petitioners.

28 Only because the Petitioners carry on business in the State of

Maharashtra would not give rise to the cause of action for the court

to exercise its jurisdiction unless the part of cause of action has

arisen within that territory. The mere fact that the business is

carried on in a particular place, will not confer jurisdiction unless it

is shown that the place of business is the integral part of the

business.

29 Heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of this court in the

case of Damomal Kauromal Raisingani (supra) and Vodafone

India Ltd. by the leraned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners to

suggest that even if a seat of the authority concerned is outside

Maharashtra, this court would possess the territorial jurisdiction.

30 In the present case, the impugned investigation has been

ordered in respect of the agreements entered into by the present

Petitioner with others having its area of operation in the State of

Kerala. Hence, if at all, the further orders would have effect, it would

be for the area of operation in the State of Kerala. The entire

investigation to be conducted is with regard to the agreements

entered into by the parties for its operation in the geographical area

of Kerala. The complainant in its complaint before the CCI has never

Basavraj 21/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

alleged that the Petitioners herein have committed anti competitive

act with the parties in the State of Maharashtra. The allegations are

restricted to the State of Kerala. The scope of complaint of the

Respondent / Complainant before the CCI does not include the

contracts or the anti competitive acts with any party within the

State of Maharashtra. In view of that it cannot be said that the effect

and consequences of the impugned order would be felt in the State of

Maharashtra. The apex court, in the case of Adani Exports Ltd.

(Supra) has observed as under:

"17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgement that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute inovlved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this principle then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the cateogry of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad."

31 The apex court, in the case of Kusum Ingots (supra) has

observed that even the operation of the Statute applicable to the

whole of India cannot be challenged in any High Court within the

Basavraj 22/24 3755.22-wp+.docx

territory of India but only in the territory where the provisions of

the Statute give rise to the civil consequences to the Petitioner.

32 Taking the stock of the factual matrix involved in the present

case and the judgments delivered by the apex court cited by the

learned Advocates, it is abundantly clear that no part of cause of

action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

33 It is no gain saying on the part of the Petitioners that the CCI is

a National Regulatory having jurisdiction all over India and as such

the petition can be filed here in Mumbai. In view of that we are not

inclined to entertain the Writ Petition on the ground of territorial

jurisdiction.

34 The petition stands disposed of. No costs.

35 The Petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings

against the impugned order before the appropriate Forum

possessing territorial jurisdiction.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

36 At this stage, the learned Senior Advocates for the Petitioners

request that the interim order passed on 6 th April 2022 be continued

further for a period of two weeks.

Basavraj                                                             23/24
                                               3755.22-wp+.docx


37    Mr. Somasekhar, the learned Advocate for the Respondents

opposes the said request.


38    Considering that the order dated 6th April 2022 was in force for

almost five months, the same is continued for a period of 10 days

from today. Needless to state, on lapse of 10 days, said protection

shall come to an end.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR,J.)                  (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)




Basavraj                                                         24/24