Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj v. M/s. Media Video Limited.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission considered an informant's complaint alleging abuse of dominant position and unfair terms in a flat booking agreement against a real estate developer. Finding no evidence of dominance and noting the presence of other market players, the Commission closed the case under Section 26(2).
What did the court decide?
Competition Commission order closing the matter without referring to the Director General.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Fair Competition For Greater Good
Case No. 58 of 2013
In re: Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj ... Informant R/o A-91, Second Floor, The Palladians, Sector-47, Mayfield Garden, Gurgaon M/s. Media Video Limited ... Opposite Party Regd Office: B-86/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 CORAM: Dr. Geeta Gouri Member Mr. M.L. Tayal Member
Mr. Justice (retd.) S. N. Dhingra Member Mr. S.L.Bunker Member
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
This information has been filed by informant Pankaj Bhardwaj under section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act against Opposite Party, Media Video
Page 1 of 3
Fair Competition For Greater Good
Limited (MVL) alleging abuse of dominant position by Opposite Party and contravention of section 4 of the Act.
- The informant had booked a flat at Bhiwadi with the Opposite Party and paid Rs.4,19,000/- being 15% of the total amount as advance. The informant alleged that he later on learnt that Opposite Party was not having approval/sanction for the project from relevant/competent authorities. The loan application of informant was rejected by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. on this ground. The OP did not respond to his e-mails and kept on sending debit notes for claiming balance amount. The informant alleged that terms and conditions of booking the flat given in advance Registration Agreement provided for an interest to be charged from the informant @ 18% for first 90 days and 24% thereafter whereas the interest payable by the Opposite Party on failure to deliver the possession of flat in time was only 10%. He submitted that the conditions of the agreement were highly one sided and the Opposite Party being a dominant entity in real estate segment abused its dominant position by booking flats without approval/sanction from the appropriate authorities putting onerous conditions and by not delivering possession in time and cancelling and forfeiting the amount paid by the informant.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commission should refer the matter to the Director General for investigation under the Competition Act, 2002 given the lack of evidence regarding the dominant status of the respondent and
Whether the alleged conduct of the respondent constitutes an abuse of dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
Media Video Limited
Coram
Dr. Geeta Gouri
Mr. M.L. Tayal
Mr. Justice (retd.) S. N. Dhingra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court