Iqbal Singh Gumber & Ors. v. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The dissenting judge argues that the majority incorrectly closed the case based solely on low market share. He contends that the Opposite Parties held a dominant position in the specific geographic and product market due to captive consumers and lack of alternatives, warranting an investigation.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
[Case No. 10/2012]
rA �7
Filed by
Iqbal Singh Gumber & Mrs. Hardeep Kaur� Informant Against
(1) Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. & Others� Opposite Parties
As Rer R. Prasad (Dissenting)
I do not agree with the majority order for the reasons given below. The facts of the case are not required to be discussed again as they have already been discussed in the majority order.
- The main reason for closing the case is that M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. was not held to be a dominant player as its market share was very low and further M/s Purearth was not dominant player in the real estate in Delhi & NCR. The majority has held that the informants were not able to produce any record to show the dominant position of the opposite parity. For this reason the case has been closed by the majority by an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.
- I have a different view on this subject. In the Competition Act dominant position means a position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market in India which enables it to (i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market (ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. Now in this case the issue is regarding construction of a mall/commercial complex at rCent—u.are, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. Thus, the OP in this case wa Brvice to the informants as defined under Section 2(u) of itionAct. Service itself includes a time concept and the delivek bf teis was to be given to the
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Opposition Parties held a dominant position in the relevant market despite their low market share.
Whether the failure to start construction constitutes an abuse of dominance under the Competition Act.
Whether the case is fit for investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act.
Coram
R. Prasad
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1
- Order 2 — this page
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court