Shivang Agarwal & Anr. v. Supertech Ltd. Noida.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined an application alleging unfair trading and discriminatory pricing by the opposite party in a real estate project. The Commission held the opposite party did not hold a dominant position in the fragmented Noida market. It observed that grievances regarding arbitrary pricing by non-dominant entities generally fall under the Consumer Protection Act and not the Comp
What did the court decide?
The matter was closed under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 as no prima facie case was made out.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No, 28/2012
Dated: 1t 110/2012
Shivang Agarwal & Anr.
Inform ants
91
Supertech Ltd. Noida
Opposite Party
ORDER UNDER SECTION 260 OF THE COMiPETITION 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 hooked one flat each measuring 930 sq. ft. @ Rs. 28901- per sq.ft, in Supertech Cape Town project in Sector 74, Noida on payment on Rs. 51,000!.. through cheques dated 22.11,2010, respectively. The informants were allotted fiat no. R026CV2 1604 and R026CV21605 respectively.
2. The informants further submitted that they were informed that no preferential location charges would be levied on flats on the 12th floor and above. The informants accordingly opted for the same. The informants had booked the fiats on the 16th floor of the project. The opposite party raised demand letters on various dates for payment which included preferential location charges © Rs. 50/.- per sq.tt. n Cdsa of flat no .O20C/21604 and Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. in case of flat no. R026CV21605, contrary to the stipulated terms and conditions and canceled their bookings vide separate letter dated 20.10.2011 for non-payment.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the opposite party held a dominant position in the Noida real estate market under Section 4 of the Competition Act, which is a prerequisite to attract the provision.
Whether the grievance of arbitrary pricing and discriminatory conduct of a non-dominant entity constitutes an offence under the Competition Act or falls within the Consumer Protection Act.
Whether a prima facie case is made out against the opposite party warranting referral for investigation under Section 19(1) and Section 4 of the Act.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shivang Agarwal and Shubham Agarwal
Coram
Menthe
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court