No Abuse of Dominance Found – Information Closed | CCI

Case Details: Adv Utkarsh Tiwari vs. Eros International Media Ltd. [2026] 182 taxmann.com 151 (CCI)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ravneet Kaur, Chairperson, Sweta Kakkad & Deepak Anurag, Member

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Informants filed information against OP, a production house, alleging contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The Informants alleged that OP had rights for theatrical and television distribution of the film ‘Raanjhanaa’ in India and globally.

However, OP didn’t have any rights to alter the film’s content, which belonged solely to the director and the artists involved in writing, producing, and directing the feature film, who earned royalties from media houses.

After almost 8 years, OP re-released the feature film ‘Raanjhanaa’ in the State of Tamil Nadu, where it changed the film’s ending as per its own wishes with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI), thereby contravening the provisions of section 3 of the Act.

Further, the misuse of dominant position by OP in the relevant market of the motion picture industry was done to earn profit in the absence of any regulations in Indian jurisprudence regarding such usage of technology to alter original works.

Moreover, OP had taken a step forward by executing the same and broadcasting the altered film in theatres in Tamil Nadu and was planning to release it on OTT platforms in order to adversely affect competition in India, which made any understanding/agreement anti-competitive as per section 3 of the Act.

It was noted that, considering facts and circumstances of the present case and allegations levelled therein, it was observed that such issues appeared to be like a dispute, if any, between concerned/relevant parties, which ipso facto did not require the intervention of CCI.

CCI Held

The CCI held that since informant had made multiple allegations alleging contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Act, but had failed to furnish any evidence to substantiate such allegations or establish a nexus between impugned conduct and alleged contraventions of Act, issues raised in instant matter did not fall under ambit of Act and remedies, if any, lay before an appropriate forum/elsewhere. Thus, no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act could be made out against OP.