This order considers an information alleging abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002 regarding a mall agreement. The Commission held that no dominant position was established and no competition concerns were raised.
The matter is closed and no direction was issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Competition Commission of India
Case No. 27/2012
11
Date:131u1y, 2012
(i) Sint. Raj Rani Chandhok
Informants
(ii) Shree Poneet Chandhok
Vs.
(i) Senior Builders Limited
Opposite Parties
(ii) Pacific Greens Infracon Pvt. Limited (iii) Mr. Amar Singh
Order under Section 26 (2) of Competition Act 2002
The instant information has been filed by Sint. Raj Rani Chandhok & Shree Poneet Chandhok (Informants) uls 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against Senior Builders Limited & Others (Opposite Parties) alleging inter alia contravention of provisions of sections 3 & 4 of the Act.
4.Further, vide letter dated 21-06-2008, the OP No-2 assured the informants that on payment of the entire outstanding, the OPs will start paying the rent to the informants till the possession of the shop/property was handed over to the proposed lessee (India Bulls) under the Lease Agreement dated 1-02-2008.
had a substantial market share or strength in the market of providing commercial space, it cannot be said that 0 were in a dominant position. The informants and consumers have already exploited other judicial forums for their grievance and filed FIR, and suits before District Court, Gurgaon. Informants had entered into a compromise withOp in the suit filed by them. The dispute between the informants and the Ojs does not concern the Competition Act neither the informants habeen able to show how the provisions of the Competition Act were attracted in this case.
Sd!-' Sd!- Sd!-
Member (G) Member (R) Member (AG)
SdJ-
Sd!- si-
Member (T)
iviember (GG) Member (D)
S(!/-
Chairperson
Cer[I TruejT
Q,) �7
75
:11
P. GAHLAUT
- � QJSSISTANT DIRECTOR
S'ne(ition Commission of India
New Delhi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the informants established a prima facie case of violation of Section 4 (Abuse of Dominant Position) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the opposite parties held a dominant position in the relevant market of providing commercial space in Gurgaon.
Whether the dispute regarding possession and rent falls within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Raj Rani Chandhok
Shri Poonam Chandhok
Senior Builders Limited
Pacific Greens Infracon Pvt. Limited
Mr. Amar Singh
P. GAHLAUT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
