Shri a. K. Jain, Gurgaon, Haryana v. The Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission considered an informant's allegation of abuse of dominant position by a real estate developer over delayed project delivery and unfair one-sided agreement terms. Finding no evidence of dominant position in the specific market, the Commission closed the inquiry under Section 26(2).
What did the court decide?
Proceedings closed under Section 26(2); no investigation directed.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No.- 43/2012
Date: 11/10/2012
Filed by: Shri A.K. Jain, Gurgaon, Haryana
Against : The Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi
ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002
The present information was filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Mr. A.K. Jain(hereinafter referred as “Informant) against Dwarkadhis Projects (P) Ltd., Delhi(hereinafter referred to as “Opposite Party) alleging abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Party in contravention of Section 4 of the Act.
- As per the information, informant had purchased a dwelling unit in the group housing project namely “Aravali Heights at Sector-24, Dharuhera, District Rewari, Haryana” of OP who promised to complete the construction of the dwelling units within the stipulated time as per the rules of Haryana Government. However, despite expiry of 5 years and 8 months(against promised time of 3 years for completion of the project) and despite having collected 95% of the price without even getting the mandatory occupation/completion certificate from the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, OP sent a final demand letter dated 27/04/2012 seeking payment of Rs.3,29,012/- as charges for conducting improvement work before handing over the possession. On 26/06/2012, OP also forwarded ‘Buyer’s Agreement’ containing several unfair, objectionable and onesided terms, for the signature of the informant.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the informant established the existence of a dominant position under Explanation (a) to Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the alleged one-sided terms in the buyer's agreement constitute an abuse of dominant position.
Whether a prima facie case for investigation under Section 26(1) of the Act is made out.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Shri A.K. Jain
- respondent
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Coram
Member(G)
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · October
- Case no.
- 43/2012
- Topic
- Consumer Protection
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page
- Order 2
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court