AMMA, FEFKA Indulged In Anti-Competitive Conduct Against Director Vinayan: CCI [Read Order]

AMMA, FEFKA Indulged In Anti-Competitive Conduct Against Director Vinayan: CCI [Read Order]


The commission has imposed a penalty of Rs. 51,478 on Innocent, Rs. 19,113 on Edavela Babu, Rs. 66,356 on Sibi Malayil, Rs. 32,026 on B Unnikrishnan and a penalty of Rs. 27,737 on K Mohanan.


The Competition Commission of India has found that Malayalam film associations like AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists) and FEFKA (Film Employees’ Federation of Kerala) indulged in anti-competitive conduct in boycott of Vinayan, a Malayalam film director.

Vinayan had lodged a complaint before the commission that these associations tried to force various actors, technicians, producers, financers, not to work or associate with him in any of his project and for achieving that purpose, they imposed a ban on actors, technicians, producers, etc., who worked with him, by issuing circulars and show cause notices.

The commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 51,478 on Innocent, Rs. 19,113 on Edavela Babu, Rs. 66,356 on Sibi Malayil, Rs. 32,026 on B Unnikrishnan and a penalty of Rs. 27,737 on K Mohanan.

The commission observed: “It is apparent how these associations affect the free and fair competition in the market and create hurdles for those who do not mend their ways to work as per the whims and fancies of these associations. Their mightiness is also reflected by the fact that even renowned actors and players in the industry are not able to ignore or disregard their demands.”

The commission specifically found that anti-competitive conduct of FEFKA was carried on with the knowledge and consent of Sibi Malayil and Unnikrishnan, and they were actively involved in the said contravention. With regard to Innocent, the commission observed: “He was the president of the association and it is improbable that any decision could have been taken without his concurrence or active involvement. His active involvement in the meetings as cited above further supports this inference, which is sufficient to trigger the liability under Section 48(1) of the Act.”

Read the Order here.