Informants challenged unfair pricing and discriminatory practices by Supertech Ltd. regarding apartment bookings. The Commission found no evidence of dominant position under section 4 and decided to close the case under section 20(2).
Case closed under Section 20(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.
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.
V
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 28/2012
Dated: /Lç/2012
In re:
ShivangAgarwal & Anr.
-. Informants
V.
Supertech Ltd. Noida
Opposite Party
ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT. 2002
The present information was filed under section 19(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act) by Shivang Agarwal and Shubham Agarwal (together referred to as 'the informants') against Supertech Ltd., Noida (opposite party). The informants submit that they booked one flat each measuring 930 sq. ft. @ Rs. 2890/- per sq. ft., in Supertech Cape Town project in Sector 74, Noida on payment of Rs. 51,000/through cheques dated 22.11 .2010, respectively. The informants were allotted flat no. R026CV21604 and R026CV21605 respectively.
:j --- ---. � *:., I......_.
1-1
R026CV21604 and Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. in case of flat no. R026CV21605, contrary to the stipulated terms and conditions and cancelled their bookings vide separate letter dated 20.10.2011 for non-payment.
2
/
adopted by OP. The informant gave the instance of one Abhishek Agarwal who booked a flat in the same project and was not charged any PLC even though his flat was on the 8 Floor. The instance of one Veerbala Gupta and Madhuleerna Gupta was also been cited who had been charged Rs. 2800/- per sq. ft. (on 17.02.2011) ancl Rs. 2825/- per sq. ft. (on 05.01.2011) respectively, whereas the informants were charged Rs. 2890/- per sq. ft. even though they booked flats much before them.
3
is nothing on record which gives any evidence of dominance of the OP. Therefore, the dominant position of the opposite party in the relevant market is not made out under Section 4 of the Act. The question of abuse of dominance, therefore, does not arise.
Secretary is directed to inform all concerned accordingly.
SdJ - Member (C
Sd!SdJ - Member (AG) Member (T)
Sd!i .irçeJsOfl
Certified True Copy
SP.GA LAUT Assistant Director —Coñptition Commission of India New Delhi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party holds a dominant position in the relevant market under explanation (a) to section 4 of the Act.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the opposite party for violation of the provisions of the Act.
Whether the demand of preferential location charges constitutes an abuse of dominance under section 4.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Member (C)
Member (AG)
Member (T)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
