CCI Orders in Rem Bind Industry: Madras HC Directs Swift Decision on Theatre Partner’s Impleadment Application in Case against PVR INOX [Read Order]

The Madras High Court in a recent case, has directed the Competition Commission of India ( CCI ) to expeditiously decide a theatre partner’s impleadment application in the ongoing probe against PVR INOX Ltd.

The case arose from a Writ Petition filed by P. Nikilesh Surya, a partner in Rohini Movie Park, Chennai, who sought to be impleaded in a Case initiated by the Film and Television Producers Guild of India before the CCI.

The petitioner, P. Nikilesh Surya argued that as an exhibitor operating four theatres, including single‑screen and small multiplexes, his business model was directly impacted by the Virtual Print Fee (VPF) regime and the alleged abuse of dominance by PVR INOX.

He submitted that any order passed by the Commission would be in rem, binding across the industry, and therefore, he had a legitimate interest in being heard. To this end, he filed impleadment applications dated 18 November 2025 and 21 November 2025 under Regulation 26 of the Competition Commission of India (General Regulations), 2024.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 26 specifically provides for the impleadment of interested parties in proceedings before the Commission.

Since the CCI had already passed an order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, directing the Director General to investigate PVR INOX, the petitioner’s participation was necessary to ensure that the investigation and subsequent orders reflected the concerns of smaller exhibitors as well.

On behalf of the respondents, the Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that the Commission was seized of numerous impleadment applications across the country and would consider each one in accordance with law. He assured the Court that the petitioner’s application would also be duly examined.

Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here

Justice N. Sathish Kumar, noting the limited relief sought, refrained from entering into the merits of the competition case. The Court observed that since any order of the Commission would have a binding effect on all persons engaged in the same business, the petitioner’s plea for impleadment deserved consideration.

Accordingly, the Court directed the CCI to decide the petitioner’s application strictly in terms of Regulation 26 of the General Regulations, 2024, and to do so expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates