MCA

Competition Commission of India imposes penalty on All India Chess Federation for abuse of dominant position

Competition Commission of India imposes penalty on All India Chess Federation for abuse of dominant position and imposing unreasonable restraints on chess players/irganisations

Competition Commission of India (CCI) issues order against All India Chess Federation (AICF) for abuse of dominant position and imposition of unreasonable vertical restraints on chess players and organisation of chess events; Imposes penalty of Rs. 6.92 lakhs on AICF for the Anti-Competitive conduct. 

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) received an information from four chess players who were subjected to disciplinary action by All India Chess Federation (AICF) for participation in a chess event not authorised by it. The case concerned several stipulations of AICF on chess players, organisation of chess tournaments, discretionary nomination of players, etc.

After a detailed investigation by the Director General, CCI conducted further inquiry in the matter and found AICF to enjoy dominant position in the markets for organization of professional chess tournaments/ events in India and services of chess players in India. In its order under Section 27 of the Act, CCI observed that AICF’s restriction on chess players to participate in unauthorised events and attendant punitive consequences restricted the movement of chess players and placed them and potential organisers of chess tournaments in a disproportional disadvantage. Hence, such stipulation was held as an unreasonable restriction on chess players and denial of market access to organisers of chess events/ tournaments, in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) read with 4(2)(b)(1) and Section 4(2)(c) of the Act. The restrictions on chess players was further held to be in the nature of exclusive distribution and refusal to deal, in contravention of Section 3(4)(c) and Section 3(4)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, CCI directed that:

  1. AICF shall cease and desist from the conducts that is found anti-competitive;
  1. AICF shall lay down the process and parameters governing authorisation/ sanctioning of chess tournaments. In doing so, AICF will ensure that they are necessary to serve the interest of the sport changes and shall be applied in a fair, transparent and equitable manner. Besides, AICF shall take all possible measure(s) to ensure that competition is not impeded while preserving the objective of development of chess in the country; and
  1. AICF shall establish prejudice caused by a chess player before taking any disciplinary action against him. Needless to say, the disciplinary actions taken shall be proportional, fair and transparent. The disciplinary actions against the Informant and other similar players shall be reviewed by AICF on these lines;
  1. AICF shall file a report to the Commission on the compliance of the aforesaid directions from (a) to (c) within a period of 60 days from the receipt of this order.

A penalty of INR 6.92 lakhs was also imposed on AICF for indulging into the anti-competitive conduct. A copy of the CCI’s order passed in Case No. 79 of 2011 has been uploaded on the website of CCI at www.cci.gov.in.

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Prima facie satisfaction u/s 148 can not be a non-existing or incorrect information

The prima facie satisfaction u/s 148 cannot be stretched to a non-existing information or incorrect information - ITAT In a…

10 hours ago
  • SEBI

Mutual Funds to value physical Gold and Silver by using the polled spot prices

Mutual Funds to value physical Gold and Silver by using the polled spot prices published by the recognized stock exchanges…

19 hours ago
  • bankruptcy

SC allows simultaneous CIRP proceedings against principal debtor & corporate guarantor

Supreme Court allows simultaneous CIRP proceedings against principal debtor and its corporate guarantor, declines to frame any guidelines In a…

20 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Merely because sales were declared for only one month, same cannot be treated as bogus

Merely because assessee had declared sales for only one month, the same cannot be treated as bogus on the basis…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

ITAT deleted addition as method of accounting had been accepted in earlier years

ITAT deleted addition as the method of accounting had been accepted by the department in earlier years and the entire…

2 days ago
  • Benami

Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be challenged under IBC 2016 – SC

Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be challenged under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - SC In a recent judgment,…

3 days ago