Dismissed

Shri Shiv Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited and Ors.

CCI10 Nov 201674/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) examined a complaint alleging that Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited and its directors cheated depositors by failing to honor bond maturities and land allotment promises. The CCI held that these allegations constitute commercial fraud and do not raise any issue under the Competition Act, 2002.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The matter is closed as no case of contravention of the Act is made out.

Shri Shiv Ram Sharma and Ors. Vs Kalptaru… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | CCI (2016)

¶1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

¶2

Case No. 74 of 2016

¶3

In re:

¶4

1. Shri Shiv Ram Sharma
Prahlad Nagar, Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan Informant No. 1
2. Ms. Mamta Devi Sharma
Prahlad Nagar, Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan Informant No. 2
3. Shri Kishan Khandelwal
Aluda, Dausa, Rajasthan Informant No. 3
4. Shri Shyam Sunder Dadhich
Barundhan, Talera, Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 4
5. Shri Narayan Lal Sharma
Naya Bazar, Gangapur City, Rajasthan Informant No. 5
6. Mrs. Guddi Devi Sharma
Narauli Chod, Bamanbass,
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan Informant No. 6
7. Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain
Mandoli, K. Patan, Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 7
8. Shri Surendra Kumar Bairwa
Pachala, Uniara,Tonk, Rajasthan Informant No. 8
*Case No. 74 of 2016 Page 1 of 7*

¶5

9.	Shri Babu Lal Saini Gandhipura Lakheri,
	Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 9
10.	Shri Badri Lal Saini
	Ganeshpura Lakheri, Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 10
11.	Shri Surendra Kumar Gautam
	Sugar Mili Chauraha,
	Keshav Rai Patan, Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 11
12.	Shri Mohan Lal Goswami
	Charigaon Road, Baran, Rajasthan Informant No. 12
13.	Shri Ganesh Yadav
	Manas Gaon, Ladpura, Kota, Rajasthan Informant No. 13
14.	Shri Ramesh Goswami
	Shivaji School Ke Pass,
	Keshav Rai Patan, Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 14
15.	Shri Surendra Singh Chaudhary
	Nolada (Dharawan), Indergarh,
	Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 15
16.	Mrs. Madhu Dadhich
	Near Mandoli Tehsil, Bundi, Rajasthan Informant No. 16
17.	Shri Shiv Ram Saini
	Near Tool Tax Masalpur Road,
	*Case No. 74 of 2016 Page 2 of 7*

¶6

Karoli, Rajasthan Informant No. 17
18. Shri Badri Lal Yadav
Manas Gaon, Ladpura, Kota, Rajasthan Informant No. 18
19. Shri Hansraj Meena
H. No. 336, Santoshi Nagar,
Kota, Rajasthan Informant No. 19
20. Shri Giriraj Sharma
Narauli Chod, Bamanbass,
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan Informant No. 20
21. Shri Roop Chand Malav
Raithal, Tehsil Mangrol, Baran, Rajasthan Informant No. 21
22. Shri Sunil Khandelwal
Aluda, Dausa, Rajasthan Informant No. 22
And
1. Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited
J. D. Business Centre,
Near Sachdeva Engineering College,
NH 2, Mathura, U.P. Opposite Party No. 1
2. Shri Jai Krishana Singh Rana, Managing Director,
LAQ-1, Veterinary College, Mathura, U. P. Opposite Party No. 2
*Case No. 74 of 2016 Page 3 of 7*

¶7

3. Shri Bharat Jain, Director,

¶8

E-46, Highway City, C/o M D Jain School, Aurangabad, Nawada, Mathura, U. P. Opposite Party No. 3

¶9

4. Shri Vishvanath Pratap Singh, Director, Kalptaru Food, Aurangabad,

¶10

Agra, Mathura, U. P.

¶11

Opposite Party No. 4

¶12

5. Shri Bipin Singh Yadav, Director, J. D. Business Centre,

¶13

Near Sachdeva Engineering College,

¶14

NH 2, Mathura, U. P. Opposite Party No. 5

¶15

CORAM

¶16

Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson

¶17

Mr. S. L. Bunker Member

¶18

Mr. Sudhir Mital Member

¶19

Mr. Augustine Peter Member

¶20

Mr. U. C. Nahta Member

¶21

Justice G. P. Mittal Member

¶22

Case No. 74 of 2016 Page 4 of 7

¶23

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

¶24

The information in the present case was filed by Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma and twenty one others as listed above (‘ Informants ’) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘ Act ’) against Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited (‘ OP 1 ’), Shri Jai Krishana Singh Rana ( ‘OP 2’ ), Shri Bharat Jain ( ‘OP 3’ ), Shri Vishvanath Pratap Singh ( ‘OP 4’ ), and Shri Bipin Singh Yadav ( ‘OP 5’ ) alleging contravention of the provisions of the Act.

¶25

It is stated that OP 1 is a public limited company engaged in real estate business and it collects money from the public through its appointed agents for further investment. It is stated that OP 1 runs Kalpataru Mega Mart Shopping Chain, Kalindi Green and Kalpataru multi-trade outlets through which it mobilises savings/ deposits from the public by signing an application form cum agreement. Further, it is stated that OP 2, OP 3, OP 4 and OP 5 are the directors of OP 1.

¶26

According to the Informant, as per the conditions laid down in the application form or agreement executed with the depositors, OP 1 is required to pay a guaranteed amount to its depositors on maturity of bond/ policy. It is averred that OP 1 is fooling and misleading the public by collecting money from them with a promise to pay them the amount on maturity with agreed returns or to allot them plots of land. It is stated that OP 1 has engaged marketing agents on commission basis to collect money from the public as per the scheme/ policy/ bond and deposit the same with OP 1 and in turn, it issues receipts to such depositors. To receive the final payment on maturity, the depositors have to produce the said receipts before OP 1.

¶27

Case No. 74 of 2016 Page 5 of 7

¶28

It is alleged that the cheques issued by OP 1 to many of its customers on maturity of their policy/ bond have been dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in its account. Further, it is alleged that since April, 2015, OP 1 is not paying to the Informants on maturity of their bond/ policy despite submitting the original receipt. Even though one of the directors of OP 1 vide letter dated 20.10.2015 has assured the Informants to pay all the sums due, till date no money has been received by the Informants. In this regard, the Informants have served a legal notice dated 27.06.2016 to the OPs, but of no avail. It is also alleged that OP 1 has not been paying salary to its employees for the last several months.

¶29

Based on the above, the Informants, inter alia , have requested the Commission to direct OPs to pay the total amount due to them along with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The Informants have also prayed for interim relief in the matter.

¶30

The Commission has perused the information and other materials available on record.

¶31

The Commission takes note of the fact that the main allegation of the Informants is that OP 1 and its officials are not paying them money on maturity of their policy/ bond as per the agreement. It is noted that OP 1 had allegedly collected money from the Informants and others by issuing policy/ bonds with a promise to pay the same on maturity along with an agreed rate of return and in some cases, money was collected from the people with the promise to allot land to them. The Commission observes that as per the allegations OP 1 cheated and defrauded the Informants. The Commission is of the view that the averments made by the Informants do not raise any competition issue and therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of the Act.

¶32

Case No. 74 of 2016 Page 6 of 7

¶33

In view of the above, the Commission concludes that no case of contravention of any of the provisions of either Section 3 or 4 of the Act is made out against any of the OPs in the instant matter. Accordingly, the matter is closed under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act.

¶34

The Secretary is directed to inform all concerned accordingly.

¶35

	Sd/- (Devender Kumar Sikri) Chairperson
	Sd/- (S. L. Bunker) Member
	Sd/- (Sudhir Mital)
	Member
	Sd/- (Augustine Peter)
	Member
	Sd/-
	(U. C. Nahta) Member
	Sd/-
	(Justice G. P. Mittal) Member
New Delhi
Dated: 10.11.2016
*Case No. 74 of 2016*	*Page 7 of 7*

Shri Shiv Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shiv Ram Sharma and Ors. v. Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases