4.2 Section 3 Applicability: The ICC argued that the definition of the agreement in Section 2, point b) was largely connoted and that any anti-competitive agreement between persons or groups of persons had been concluded by Section 3, paragraph 3, point b). The Coordinating Committee insisted that it was a union and that its activity was not 3 (3). The SC made extensive submissions to section 3 of the agreement and found that the joint action was based on an agreement and that the Coordinating Committee was within the definition of the person. In addition, the SC considered that any business, whatever its form, constitutes a business when it engages in economic activity. The SC referred to the DG`s notes and the ICC`s majority opinion that, although the two institutions are not themselves economically active, they are in fact an association of companies whose members work in the production, distribution and exhibition of films. They acted in a concerted and coordinated manner by making decisions on behalf of members who were doing similar or identical business. Because their decisions reflected the collective intent of the members, the case could not be set aside in the name of unionism. For example, the SC confirmed the ICC`s view that the offending actions discouraged consumers from observing synchronized series and hindered competition in the market by preventing them from broadcasting. This meant the creation of barriers to the introduction of new content and thus violated Section 3, paragraph 3, point b).
„Under the provisions of the Competition Act 2002, the ICC is responsible for imposing sanctions and/or enacting restraining orders in cases of unethical practices, such as anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance,“ he said in March 2013, when the ICC authorized the British company Diageo PLC to buy a majority stake in United Spirits, an Indian company. The ICC stated that the geographic market at issue was India as a whole. In terms of the product market, the probe focused on branded wine and spirits. The ICC found that united Spirits and Diageo are generally in different price/quality categories, so there is little overlap in competitions. In the whisky market, where the two companies are close competitors, the ICC has found that there are other players that have several effective competing brands in the market. The Commission found that the disputed agreements violating Section 3 of the Act and found that the network of such agreements allowed OEMs to become monopolistic players in aftermarkets for their automotive model, to create barriers to entry and to close competition with independent suppliers.