MOOT MEMORIAL

BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

CIVIL SUIT NO: ___/2020

UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955 R/W SECTION 7 OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT,1984

IN THE MATTER OF:

SEEMA SINGHAL...…………………...………………………………..…...PETITIONER

RAJESH SINGHAL……....………………………………………………...RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELANT

1. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS 1

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2

I. TABLE OF CASES 2

II. CONSTITUTIONS 3

III. STATUTES. 3

IV. DATABASES. 3

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 4

4. STATEMENTS OF FACTS. 6

5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES. 7

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS. 8

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCE 9
1. Whether this case is maintainable under jurisdiction of National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal?
2. Whether the vertical agreement between the JCFL and cinema theatre
owners including Big show causes Appreciable Adverse Effect on
Competition in Colere?
3. Whether use of Veto Power by JCFL constitutes Abuse of Dominant
Position?
8. PRAYER 13
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

JCFL

OTT

DG

Hon’ble Honourable

No. Number

Sec Section

SC

SCC

UOI

V. Verses
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. TABLE OF CASES

Case Citations Pg. no.

Narayan Ganesh Dastane v Sucheta Narayan 1975 AIR 1534, 1975 SCR (3) 967 10
Dastane,

Savitri Pandey vs Prem Chandra Pandey, 1998 (3) AWC 1903, II (1998) DMC 446 10

Smt. Chanderkala Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi, II (1993) DMC 271 SC, JT 1993 (4) SC 11
644, 1993 (3) SCALE 541, (1993) 4 SCC
232, 1993 Supp 1 SCR 796

Shanti Nigam vs. Ramesh Chandra, (1971) ALJ 67 12

ManjulaZaverilal Kothari vs AIR 1975 Guj 158, (1974) GLR 758 12

Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh AIR 1984 Delhi 66, ILR 1984 Delhi 546, 12
Choudhry, 1984 RLR 187
II. CONSTITUTIONS:

1. Constitution of India, 1950

III. STATUES

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The Family Courts Act,1984.

IV. DATABASES

1. www.scconline.com

2. www.indiankanoon.com

3. www.lexisnexis.com

4. www.lawctopus.com

5. www.manupatra.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:
The section 53A of the competition act 2002 states that

53A.Appellate Tribunal: The National company Law Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 410 of
the companies Act,2013(18 of 2013) shall, on and from the commencement of part XIV of chapter VI of
the Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), be the Appellate Tribunal for the purpose of this Act and the said
Appellate Tribunal shall-

(a) Hear and dispose of appeals against any direction issued or decision made or order passed by the
commission under sub-section (2) and (6) of section 26, section 27, section 28, sectn 31, section
32, section 33, section 38, section 39, section 43, section 43A, section 44, section 45 or section 46
of this Act .
(b) Adjudicate on claim for compensation hat may arise from the findings of the commission or the
orders of the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal against any findings of the commission or under
section 42A or under sub-section (2) of section 53Q of this Act, and pass orders for the recovery
of compensation under section 53N of this Act.

As per the section 53A of the competition act 2002 with reference of the section 27 of the

FACTS OF THE CASE :

Jackie Cruz is one of the biggest stars in colerian flim industry. Jackie cruz holds 70% of shares in the
company named Jackie Cruz Films Pvt. Limited. JCFL produces atleast 10 movies every year. Naturally
the movies occupy the theaters for more weeks than any other movie.

Mr. Taran, Mr. Chris and Mr. Chan are other prominent actors of colerian flim industry. Mr Taran acts in
all the languages of colere. Mr. Chris is another prominent actor who acts in colerian language movies.
He also owns 30% shares in JCFL. Chris also owns a company in which he has 99% shares named The
Big Show Pvt.Ltd. it is a largest multiples chain in the country and has 30 multiplexes with 100 screens.

Mr. Chan is an upcoming actor whose movie’s was quite a big hit. In last 3 years he has acted in 5
Movies all of which have been blockbusters. The movie theaters kept his movies running for months
together on popular demand. Due to that JCFL started to suffer losses. To recover from the losses Mr
chris dedicated all the screens in its multiplexes to movies made JCFL only.

Big Show entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with JCFL regarding its movies. As in the
given fact that the number of movies made by Mr. Chan was few this agreement is proved to be
detrimental to the interest of the other multiplexes and single-screen theaters. Later the theater owners
JCFL agreed to showcase their movies in other cinema halls on the condition that all the time of releases
of films by JCFL or Mr. Chris, the theaters will not show other movies for 2 weeks from the date of such
release.

This act made it difficult for the film producers to engage Me. Chan in their movies. Mr. Chan moved to
the competition commission of colere against JCFL, Mr. Taran, and M Chria for entering into anti-
competitive agreements.

Due to 2019 pandemic there was a adverse affect in people and business life. All the theaters were locked.
OTT Platforms suddenly became preferred medium of release of the movies. Zaidu, Unfilmy and Movie
Era were the only three OTT platforms available in colere. Zaidu was the product company of AlphaDelta
which had 70% of the total subscription .Unfilmy had 30% of the total subscriber while Movie Era did
not work on Subscription model and worked on advertisement revenue sharing model.

Alpha delta also runs social media platform called Heartbook, Heartbook was the most famous and
popular social media platform in colere. Around 90% of the people who were using OTT platforms for
watching movies.

JCFL holds 10% of the total shares in AlphaDelta. Along with the shares JCFL also acquired veto rights
over contents to be published on zaidu platform.

Due to vulgarity, nudity, abusive language, and adult ontent in Mr. chan’s movies JCFL used veto power
disallowed chan’s movie for the users of the platform especially the children. The Director-General in his
report has pointed out that the vertical agreement between the cinema theater owners including The Big
Show and JCFL did not result in Appreciable Adverse Effect on competition in colere. despite the
agreements other producers were able to get releases on their films and despite being the highest-
grossing production house, the number of movies released by JCFL accounted for only 20% of
the total number of films released. However, The DG noted that the use of Veto power by JCFL
constitutes Abuse of Dominant Position. For the same, the DG has delineated the market as all
the OTT platforms.

Both JCFL and Mr. Chan have gone on appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
against the order of CCC. NCLAT has clubbed the matter and will hear it together.

1. Whether the vertical agreement between the JCFL and cinema theatre
owners including Big show causes Appreciable Adverse Effect on
Competition in Colere?
A vertical agreement is a phrase used in competition law to describe agreements between companies
that operate at different levels of the production/distribution chain (for example, relationships between
manufacturers and their customers/distributors.

A retailer and a consumer electronics manufacturer could have a vertical agreement in which the latter
sells and promotes the former's products in exchange for lower prices. These agreements may result in
market partitioning and/or the establishment and maintenance of territorial limits. Unless covered by a
block exemption or an individual exception, such vertical constraints may be prohibited under Article 4.

The positive and negative impacts of competition are analyzed by using the Principle of the rule of
reason.

According to the Director generals report that no competitive agreement took place between the
theatre owners with JCFL and Big show company Pvt Ltd.

It has been mentioned in the report that the vertical agreement beween the cinema theater owners
including The Big Show and JFCL did not result in Appreciable adverse Effect on competition in colere.
Dispite the agreements the other producers were able to get releases on their films and despite being
the highest-grossing production house the number of movies released by JCFL accounted for only 20%
of the total number of films released.

Thus the agreement between JCFL and Big Show Pvt Ltd came into force was just to recover from their
losses, it cant be termed as an anti competitive behavior. though there was an exclusive agreement still
other producers were able to make movies and release them.

In the case of Ajay Devgn Films V. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

It was held that competition commission of India (CCI) has rejected the complaint from actor Ajay Devg
against yash raj films for abuse of dominant position in the hindi film industry. The commission has
rejected the complaint of Ajay Devgn against yash raj films as there was no merit in it. As the complaint
does not fall under any area that violates competition rules.