Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. Dlf Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
Dissenting opinion holds that the Respondent holds a dominant position in the specific real estate market of Rajarhat, Kolkata. It argues that imposing harsh terms on captive consumers constitutes an abuse of dominance and directs an investigation.
What did the court decide?
Directed DG to cause an investigation into the matter.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
[Case No. 31/2012]
Date: 03.01.2013
Sanjay Kumar Gupta
…. Informant (IP)
Vs.
M/s DLF Ltd. Anr.
.... Opposite Parties
As per 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 there were more than twenty real estate developers in Kolkata which showed that the market was fragmented. It was also found that the opposite party had merely two residential and one SEZ Project in Kolkata. On this basis it was held that the O.P. could not be regarded as a dominant player in Kolkata.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 should be directed.
Whether the Respondent enjoys a dominant position under Section 4 of the Act in the relevant market.
Whether the Respondent abused its dominant position by imposing harsh terms under Section 4(2) of the Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sanjay Kumar Gupta
- respondent
M/s DLF Ltd.
Coram
R.Prasad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · January
- Case no.
- 31/2012
- Topic
- Bail and Remand
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