S.Chakravarthy, - (1.) THIS is a review application under Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act, 1969 filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (review applicant hereafter) against the order dated 25th January, 1994 of the Commission reported at (1994) 2 CTJ 49 (MRTP). Originally, the Director General Investigation & Registration (DG for short) had moved an application under Section 10(a)(iii) of the Act alleging certain restrictive trade practices against the review applicant. A Bench of this Commission consisting of Shri N. C. Gupta, the then Member, and Shri Sardar Ali, Member had passed the impugned order holding that the review applicant had indulged in restrictive trade practices and directed that the review applicant should not indulge in such practices in future. A cost of Rs. 2, 000/- was also made payable by the review applicant. THIS is the order which is sought to be reviewed and is before us. Before we proceed to the review application, it is desirable to record the facts in brief, which led to the impugned order.
(2.) The review applicant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and provides services by way of organising cricket matches including test matches, trophy matches, one day matches etc. The review applicant has several Cricket Associations and Clubs as members which elect members to its working committee. The Cricket Associations and Clubs control cricket grounds and stadia in the country and cricketers develop their talents with the facilities provided by the former. Cricket players are selected to play cricket for the country by the review applicant. Such players enter into an agreement with the review applicant Board. The DG investigated the complaint of one Shri R. K. Rao, who alleged that the review applicant was indulging in certain restrictive trade practices by entering into an agreement with the players imposing restrictions on them. The DG submitted his application under Section 10(a)(ii) of the Act stating that the review applicant did not furnish any information during the investigation.
(3.) ACCORDING to the DG, the review applicant by providing facilities for playing cricket, for viewing cricket and for promoting cricket is rendering "service" within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the MRTP Act and the Board is also carrying on "trade" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act by rendering service. The DG added that the players were paid certain amounts for playing cricket matches for rendering service as "cricket players". The amount so paid is the price for the service rendered by the cricketers.;