Proper delineation of the relevant market is required to identify the competing alternatives offered to people and, as a result, the competitive restrictions encountered by the enterprise under investigation in a systematic manner. This entails determining the substitutable goods or services as well as defining the geographic scope within which such goods or services compete. This was observed in the matter of In Re: TT Friendly Super League Association And The Suburban Table Tennis Association and Ors. [Case. No. 19 of 2021], before Hon’ble Chairperson Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Members, Ms. Sangeeta Verma and Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi.
The brief facts of the case are as follows; the Informant goes on to say that prior to its incorporation as an NGO, it used to regularly arrange friendly TT matches at various venues in Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, and Thane areas, with no cash prizes, referee, cup, medal, certificate, or any ranking of any kind. The Informant is mainly dissatisfied since it has been refused access to use the services of TT players as a result of the WhatsApp notice posted by the General Secretary of OP-1, as well as certain clauses of OP-3’s Memorandum of Association addressed to players/parents/coaches/clubs, to not take part in any unassociated institutions and to not play any unaffiliated organization’s tournaments, and it further mentioned that if any member club or academy does so, that club/academy would be restricted to participate in matches organized by the State/District Body and would also amount to suspension in TT tournaments.
The Commission sought to first deal with the objection raised by the OP, which claimed that the Ops are not an ‘enterprise’ u/s 2(h) of the Competition Act. The Commission was of the opinion that the activities performed by OPs fall within the scope of the word “enterprise” as defined by the Act. According to the information, OPs organized/conducted TT tournaments, distributed prize money, trophies, medals, and certificates to TT players, held coaching camps, selected players to represent respective District/State/Country, and received sponsorships and donations, royalty, and advertising revenue, in addition to collecting yearly subscription fees. OPs also received sponsorships and revenue from advertisements, royalties, and media, as well as equipment support from manufacturers and the distribution of prize money, medals, trophies, and certificates to participants and players. Based on the relevant markets of the OPs, the Commission concluded that it enjoyed a dominant position u/s 4 of the Act. It then went on to examine the notice sent on WhatsApp and the Memorandum of Association.
It was held by the Commission that, “The WhatsApp message posted, prima facie appears to contravene the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) of the Act, as it may result in denial of market access to the Informant and other similarly placed organizations…. On a plain reading of the aforesaid byelaws of OP-3 prima facie indicate that the same are unfair being restrictive in nature and as such prima facie appear to be anti-competitive in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Such conditions also prima facie noted to limit or otherwise restrict the provisions of services or markets therefor, and thereby also contravene the provisions of Section 4(2)(b)(i) of the Act besides violating the provisions of Section 4(2)(c) thereof, as the restrictions also deny market access to players as well as organizers……the impugned conduct may also be examined by the DG within the framework of Section 3 of the Act which prohibits anti-competitive agreements and inter alia mandates that no enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons shall enter into any agreement which limits or controls production, supply, markets, technical development, investment or provision of services.”
Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar
