- (1.) Head learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) In this judgment, we will be referring to the parties as appellants and complainants respectively. The complainants filed a complaint under Section 10 read with Section 36B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the Act) before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (the Commission) against the appellants herein alleging unfair, unethical, restrictive trade practices by the appellant in not permitting the complainants and their associates from using the latest technology in telecommunication known as 'Headend in The Sky' (HITS) which would facilitate easy distribution of television channels through a satellite to various Multiple System Operators (MSOs) and cable operators from whom the programmes reach the various television viewers. They contended that the transmission of television programmes by the said HITS system which is approved by the Government of India would provide greater benefit to the public at large. They contended that this system is superior to the existing terrestrial distribution and is also economically cheap. They also urged that this system would ensure generation of higher revenues in terms of higher entertainment and service tax to the Government by 100% declaration. The complainants also alleged that the denial of such facilities to them by the appellants was with a view to prevent the introduction of Conditional Access System (CAS) which the Government of India has decided to introduce compulsorily in the areas notified by it. They also alleged that the said denial is with a view to eliminate competition and secure a total monopoly over the distribution market by unfairly and illegally promoting its own affiliates, hence, the action of the appellants was in total violation of the provisions of the Act.;