SC Protects Theatre Rights Against Distributor Cartels – No More Ban

Respondent No.4 Crown Theatre filed complaint alleging anti-competition activities by respondent No.1 and its office bearers – respondent no.2 President and respondent no.3 General Secretary.

It is alleged that the respondent no.1 threatened the distributors that their films should not be screened at Crown Theatre.   Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 took steps to ensure that new movies are not released at the said theatre.  Respondent No.4 resigned from the membership of KFEF.

The Director General submitted report of inquiry on personal involvement of respondent nos.2 and 3 in the anti-competitive measures of decision to boycott distributors if they have dealings with respondent no.4.

On 8.9.2015, the Commission passed an order under Section 27 of the Act against the respondent nos.1 to 3, imposed 10% penalty of income on respondent nos.2 and 3 and ban on their association with the respondent no.1 for a period of two years.

However, in appeal, while upholding the findings on merits, the penalty & directions against respondent nos.2 and 3 were set-aside.

HELD that Section 27 empowers the Commission, apart from monetary penalty, can also direct imposition of cease and desist orders and other behavioural and/or structural remedies.

Judgment dated 26.9.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9726 of 2016 of Competition Commission of India  Vs.  Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation and others.