Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora v. M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd. & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission examined a report alleging tacit anti-competitive agreements among real estate developers. The Commission held that insufficient evidence exists to establish a contravention of section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002, primarily due to lack of proof of meeting of minds.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 59 of 2011
In Re:
Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora
Informant
And
1. M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd. Opposite Party No. 1 2. Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana Opposite Party No. 2 3. Haryana Urban Development Authority Opposite Party No. 3 4. Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India (CREDAI) Opposite Party No. 4 5. M/s Amrapali Group Opposite Party No. 5 6. M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. Opposite Party No. 6 7. M/s Ambuja Neotia Group Opposite Party No. 7 8. M/s Avalon Group Opposite Party No. 8 9. M/s Aparna Constructions & Estates Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 9 10. M/s Amit Enterprises Housing Ltd. Opposite Party No. 10 11. M/s BPTP Limited Opposite Party No. 11 12. M/s Gaursons India Limited Opposite Party No. 12 13. M/s K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party No. 13 14. M/s Oberoi Realty Limited Opposite Party No. 14 15. M/s Omaxe Ltd. Opposite Party No. 15 16. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Opposite Party No. 16 17. M/s Puravankara Project Limited Opposite Party No. 17 18 . M/s PS Group Opposite Party No. 18 19. M/s Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. Opposite Party No. 19 20. M/s Purohit construction Ltd. Opposite Party No. 20 21. M/s Supertech Ltd. Opposite Party No. 21 22. M/s Salarpuria Group Opposite Party No. 22 23. M/s Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. Opposite Party No. 23 24. M/s Unitech Ltd. Opposite Party No. 24 C. No. 59 of 2011 1
CORAM
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the common practices in real estate buyer agreements constitute an anti-competitive agreement under section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Whether the findings of the Director General regarding tacit understanding among real estate developers are substantiated by sufficient evidence.
Whether the Code of Conduct of CREDAI evidences a concerted practice violating section 3 of the Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Shri Jyoti Swaroop Arora
- respondent
M/s Tulip Infratech Ltd.
- respondent
Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana
- respondent
Haryana Urban Development Authority
- respondent
Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India (CREDAI)
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · February
- Case no.
- 59/2011
- Topic
- Consumer Protection
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court