Yogesh Pratap Singh  And  PVR Ltd.

Case No. 40 of 2022 Page 1 of 9 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 40 of 2022 In Re: Yogesh Pratap Singh Office 37 & 38, 3rd Floor Prospect Chambers Annex 6 Pitha Street, Off PM Road, Behind Saraswati Temple, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 Informant And PVR Ltd. Block A, 4th Floor, Building No. 9A, DLF Cyber City, Phase (III), Gurugram - 122002 Opposite Party CORAM Ms. Ravneet Kaur Chairperson Mr. Anil Agrawal Member Ms. Sweta Kakkad Member Mr. Deepak Anurag Member Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present Information was filed by Mr. Yogesh Pratap Singh (hereinafter, the “Informant”) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the “Act”) alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act by PVR Ltd. (hereinafter, “Opposite Party”/ “OP”). Facts and allegations as stated in the Information 2. The Informant, after demitting public office, is stated to have taken up the profession of a lawyer, along with being a novelist, script-writer, lyricist and film maker. Case No. 40 of 2022 Page 2 of 9 3. OP is stated to be primarily in the businesses of exhibition of films in India through multiplexes and is also engaged in the production, promotion and release of films. 4. The Informant alleges that the OP, by virtue of controlling more than half of the upscale multiplex screens in India, is in a dominant position in the film exhibition market and has abused its dominance by according special treatment to films of powerful and monetarily affluent production houses and constraining the entry of films by independent filmmakers. It is also stated that OP has indulged in cartelization and vertical integration by entering into business of film production, film distribution and film exhibition with the big production houses. 5. As per the Informant, his first fictional Hindi film titled ‘Kya Yahi Sach Hai’ and second film, ‘The Indian Supari Company’ suffered due to the alleged undercurrent of anti- competitive conduct by the OP, which is a result of collaboration/cooperation between big production houses and the OP, creating entry barrier for films by independent film producers. The Informant has stated that the movie ‘Kya Yahi Sach Hai’ received an overwhelming response on YouTube, garnering about 1.3 crore views. 6. Further, the Informant has stated that he attempted to contact the OP for striking a dialogue for the exhibition of his upcoming film in the OP’s theatres, vide email dated 19.04.2022 on its authorized email address, but the same was blocked by the OP. Later on, vide letter dated 19.04.2022, the Informant tried to get certain issues redressed; however, there was no response from OP. 7. The Informant has leveled allegations against OP in respect of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which are, inter alia, listed as under: (i) OP accords special treatment to films of large production houses by entering into special tie-ups with them for production, promotion, release and exhibition of films, thereby causing entry barrier for films made by independent filmmakers. It has been Case No. 40 of 2022 Page 3 of 9 stated by the Informant that the OP was indirectly involved in the production of film Brahmastra, as consequence of which, the film received preferential treatment. This preferential treatment allegedly contained playing multiple trailers of the film free of cost, putting up huge banners and LED displays, assigning overwhelming number of screens for its screening etc., so much so that, except “Brahmastra” other films got almost no space in the first week of its release. It has also been stated that the OP, for the promotion of the film RRR, entered into a special tie-up with the filmmaker and changed its brand identity and logo from “PVR” to “PVRRR”. OP is also alleged to have entered into a tie-up with Aamir Khan Productions for film “Laal Singh Chaddha” where overwhelming number of screens were allotted to it and remaining screens were allotted to another prominent filmmaker, Akshay Kumar, leaving no screens available for the films made by the independent film makers. Thus, OP allots almost all of its screens to the films of large production houses in their release week, thereby banning the entry of films by independent filmmakers. (ii) OP has not disclosed its commercial policy on allocation of screens, release parameters including cost and availability of theatres and relative placement of independent film vis-à-vis large production houses. Because of its opaque allocation policy relating to screening of movies, the OP has discriminated against the Informant. (iii) OP, through its group company, Starlight Pictures Private Limited (“SPPL”), has entered into business of film production and through ‘PVR Pictures’ is also engaged in film distribution, thereby vertically integrated itself in producing, distributing and exhibiting films. By this conduct, OP has created discretion in its favour such as, inter alia, promotion of films by multiple methods, showing of trailers free of cost for several months, according disproportionate prominence to films etc., which are not available to the independent filmmakers. Case No. 40 of 2022 Page 4 of 9 8. The Informant has also alleged violation of some other laws such as environmental, municipal laws etc. by the OP. 9. It has been stated that the film exhibition business is extremely sensitive to the intellectualism of the nation as it influences thoughts of the people, which, in turn, have a bearing on the growth of the nation. For this reason, the touchstone of competition in this sphere is very critical and thus has to be considered through an extremely strict interpretation of the provisions of the Act vis-à-vis other sectors of the economy. 10. In view of the foregoing, the Informant has prayed to the Commission for an investigation into the allegations made in the Information and inter-alia issue following directions to the OP: (i) to give concessions to all filmmakers on same terms, (ii) to make public all the terms of the agreements made with large production houses, (iii) not to enter into special tie-ups with large production houses with respect to allocation of screens, promotional trailers and (iv) to disband vertical integration of film production and exhibition. The Informant has also prayed that suitable fine be imposed upon the OP for indulging in anti- competitive conduct. 11. The Informant has also sought interim relief under Section 33 of the Act restraining the OP from entering into exclusive tie-ups with specific production houses during the pendency of the instant proceedings and directing the OP to spell out the terms and conditions for screening films by independent filmmakers. 12. The Commission considered the matter on 05.07.2023 and directed OP to file its comments/reply, if any, within 4 weeks with a direction to serve a copy to the Informant, in advance. The Informant was directed to file its response/comments to the comments/response filed by OP, if any, within 2 weeks thereafter, with an advance copy to OP. In terms of order dated 05.07.2023, OP filed its response/comments on 25.08.2023, after seeking extension of time. The Informant has not filed its rejoinder to the response/comments filed by OP. Case No. 40 of 2022 Page 5 of 9