An informant alleged abuse of dominant position by a real estate developer in Faridabad. The Commission held the developer was not in a dominant position due to market competition. The investigation was closed without further inquiry.
The case is closed down. The Secretary is directed to inform the parties accordingly.
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.
Case No. 33 of 2013
In re:
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Chauhan ....Informant Flat No: S-1, Plot No.54-55, Pocket-1, Sector-7, Vaishali Extension, Ghaziabad
And
M/s BPTP Ltd., BPTP Crest, Plot No.15, ...Opposite Party (OP) Udyod Vihar, Phase-IV, NH—8, Gurgaon
CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Chawla Chairperson Dr. Geeta Gouri Member
Mr. Anurag Goel Member
Mr. Justice (retd.) S. N. Dhingra Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
Informant booked a residential unit in a project called “Park Elite Floors, Parkland, Faridabad” being developed by OP in Faridabad. The initial cost of the said unit was declared to public at large Rs. 25.56 lacs + EDC & IDC (external and internal development charges). OP launched the units with payment plan for the potential buyers who were supposed to make 35% payment before the Floor Buyers’ Agreement (‘the Agreement’) could be entered into. The informant and OP entered into the Agreement after 35% of purchase price was paid by the informant. The Agreement laid down the terms and conditions required to be complied by both the parties. The informant alleged several malpractices on the part of OP and alleged that OP abused its dominant position in the market of residential flats in the area of Faridabad.
Page 1 of 3
The informant prayed the Commission to initiate investigation on the abusive conduct of OP in the relevant market.
(a) "dominant position" means a position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market, in India, which enables it to—
Mishra and Supertech Ltd ’ (Case No. 03/2013) observed that, the presence of other well known builders in the relevant market negates the contention that informant or any other consumer was dependent on the opposite party to purchase an apartment. In Case no. 42/2010 the Commission had occasion to consider the dominance of OP in the year 2010. The Commission, vide its order dated 16.12.2010 passed under Section 26 (2) of the Act, held that M/s BPTP Ltd. (OP) was not in a dominant position in the relevant market as defined above. No change in circumstances has come to the notice of Commission warranting a different view now. The information available in public domain also does not suggest any material change in the real estate industry in the relevant market of ‘development and sale of residential apartments in Faridabad’ so as to change the prima facie view with regard to dominance of the OP. Presence of other builders of repute also shows prevalence of competition. It is not a case where OP could operate independent of competitive forces.
New Delhi
Dated: 31/07/2013 Sd/(Ashok Chawla) Chairperson
Sd/(Dr. Geeta Gouri) Member
Sd/(Anurag Goel) Member
Sd/(S. N. Dhingra) Member
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Opposite Party was in a dominant position in the market of development and sale of residential apartments in Faridabad.
Whether the alleged conduct of the Opposite Party constituted an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether investigation should be initiated into the alleged malpractices regarding change of terms, area increase, and cost escalation charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Mishra and Supertech LtdReferred¶19
Ajit Mishra and Supertech Ltd (Case No. 03/2013)
Case no. 42/2010Relied on¶19
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Chawla
Geeta Gouri
Anurag Goel
S. N. Dhingra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ashok Chawla and Geeta Gouri and Anurag Goel and S. N. Dhingra
Parties & counsel
