Partly allowed

In Re: Ms. Usha Roy v. Ans Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Other

CCI4 Oct 201796/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Competition Commission granted requests to rectify clerical errors in dates and party names within an earlier order under Section 26(2), holding that substantive observations and decisions cannot be rectified under Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002.

What did the court decide?

Rectification of specific dates and party names in the impugned Order; requests to alter substantive findings and scope of market delineation were rejected.

In Re: Ms. Usha Roy Vs. Ans Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Other — CCI (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case No. 96 of 2016

¶2

In Re: Ms. Usha Roy 4/28, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010, UP

¶3

Informant

¶4

And

¶5

ANS Developers Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office- 308, 3^rd Floor, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, Maharashtra Corporate Office- 11^th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, UP

¶6

Opposite Party-1

¶7

Shalimar Corp. Ltd., Regd. Office- 308, 3^rd Floor, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 Maharashtra Corporate Office- 11^th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, UP

¶8

Opposite Party-2

¶9

CORAM

¶10

Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson

¶11

Mr. S.L. Bunker Member

¶12

Mr. Sudhir Mital Member

¶13

Case No. 96 of 2016 Page

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

Order under Section 38 of the Competition Act, 2002

¶16

The present information was filed by Ms. Usha Roy (hereinafter, the “Informant” ) under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the “Act” ) against ANS Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, “OP-1” ) and Shalimar Corp. Ltd. (hereinafter, “OP-2” ) (collectively referred as “ OPs ”/ “ Opposite Parties ”) alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The Commission passed an order under Section 26(2) of the Act in the matter on 4^th October, 2017 (“ Order ”).

¶17

The Informant filed an application dated 22^nd November, 2017 under Section 38 of the Act, seeking rectification of the Order. The details of rectification sought by the Informant are as under:

¶18

(a) In Para 5 of the Order, Clause 5 of the Agreement refers to payment of balance amount to the First Party/ Seller i.e. ‘OP-1’ instead of ‘Second Party/ Purchaser’;

¶19

(b) In Para 6 of the Order, the date of submission of DPR along with map to competent authority is stated as ‘03.12.2012’ instead of ‘03.12.2011’;

¶20

(c) In Para 8 of the Order, the date of legal notice sent by Informant to OP-1 is stated as ‘ 15.07.2015 ’ instead of ‘ 20.06.2015 ’;

¶21

(d) Para 14 of the Order states that “ The Informant claimed that the said relevant market is in conformity with the Commission’s order in Case No. 48 of 2016 ”. However, the Informant was in conformity with

¶22

Case No. 96 of 2016 Page 2 of 4

¶23

Commission’s analysis and delineation of relevant geographic market only and not with the Commission’s analysis and delineation of the relevant product market; and

¶24

(e) Para 17 of the Order states selective reference to array of abuses against the OPs, which created misleading impression that this was the only dimension of abuse alleged.

¶25

The Commission considered the aforesaid application in its ordinary meeting held on 27^th December, 2017, and directed as under:

¶26

(a) The words ‘ OP-1 ’ mentioned in Para 5 of the Order shall be substituted with the words ‘ Second Party/ Purchaser ’;

¶27

(b) The date ‘ 3^rd December, 2012 ’mentioned in Para 6 of the Order shall be substituted with the date ‘ 3^rd December, 2011 ’;

¶28

(c) The date ‘ 15^th July, 2015 ’mentioned in Para 8of the Order shall be substituted with the date‘ 20^th June, 2015 ’; and

¶29

(d) As regards rectification sought by the Informant mentioned in para 2(d) and (e) above, the Commission notedthat the rectifications suggested do not appear to be mistakes apparent from the record for the purpose of Section 38 of the Act. While mistakes apparent on the record can be rectified under Section 38 of the Act, observation(s)/decision(s) of the Commission cannot be a subject matter of rectification. Therefore, the requests of rectification of Para 14 and Para 17 of the Order are not allowed.

¶30

Case No. 96 of 2016 Page 3 of 4

¶31

The Secretary is directed to inform the learned counsel for the Informant accordingly.

¶32

Sd/Sd/(S. L. Bunker) ( Sudhir Mital) Member Member

¶33

Sd/(Devender Kumar Sikri) Chairperson

¶34

New Delhi

¶35

Dated: 31.01.2018

¶36

Case No. 96 of 2016 Page 4 of 4

In Re: Ms. Usha Roy v. Ans Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In Re: Ms. Usha Roy v. Ans Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Other

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases