Dismissed

(67/2017) Bharat Burman and others v. Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd.(Srhfii), (68/2017) Harsh Vardhan v (Srhfii)., (69/2017) Anuradha and others v (Srhfii), (70/2017) Man Mohan v (Srhfii). , (71/2017) Harsh Vardhan and others v (Srhfii), (72/2017) Krishan Arora v (Srhfii) & (73/2017) Sangeeta Arora and others v (Srhfii)

CCI27 Feb 201867/2017, 68/2017, 69/2017, 70/2017, 71/2017, 72/2017 and 73/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these reference cases, the Competition Commission disposed of petitions alleging abuse of dominance and violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act due to non-payment of interest by an Opposite Party. The Commission held that no prima facie case existed and dismissed the matters.

What did the court decide?

None; the applications were closed and dismissed for want of jurisdiction and lack of prima facie case of abuse of dominance.

(67/2017) Bharat Burman and others Vs. Sri Ram Housing… — Company and Corporate | CCI (2018)

¶1

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Case Nos. 67-73 of 2017

¶2

Case No. 67 of 2017 In Re: Bharat Burman and others Informant 3D/6, Sector-NIT, Faridabad, Haryana And Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar, Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025 With Case No. 68 of 2017 In Re: Harsh Vardhan Informant 1D/11B, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana And Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar, Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025 With Case No. 69 of 2017 In Re: Anuradha and others Informant 1D/11B, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana And Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar,

¶3

Case Nos. 67-73 of 2017

¶4

Page 1 of 6

¶5

Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025

¶6

With Case No. 70 of 2017 In Re: Man Mohan Informant 3C/107, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana And Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar, Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025 With Case No. 71 of 2017 In Re: Harsh Vardhan and others Informant 1D/11B, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana And Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar, Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025 With Case No. 72 of 2017 In Re: Krishan Arora Informant 1D/11B, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana And

¶7

Case Nos. 67-73 of 2017

¶8

Page 2 of 6

¶9

Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar, Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025

¶10

With

¶11

Case No. 73 of 2017

¶12

In Re: Sangeeta Arora and others 3C/107, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana

¶13

Informant

¶14

And

¶15

Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. Opposite Party 27, Ishwar Nagar, Opposite Surya Crown Plaza Hotel, New Delhi-110025

¶16

CORAM

¶17

Mr. Devender Kumar Sikri Chairperson

¶18

Mr. Sudhir Mital Member

¶19

Mr. Augustine Peter Member

¶20

Mr. U.C. Nahta Member

¶21

Case Nos. 67-73 of 2017

¶22

Page 3 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

This common order shall dispose of the information in instant cases as they involve substantially similar allegations.

¶25

The information in instant cases have been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the “ Act ”) against Sri Ram Housing Finance & Investment of India Ltd. (hereinafter, the “ OP” ) alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

¶26

Facts and allegations, in brief, are as under:

¶27

3.1. In 1987, the OP invited applications for sale of shop/office space in a commercial complex developed by it at Mathura Road, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, the Informants or their predecessors purchased shops/flats from the OP. The OP represented that the commercial complex being developed by it was duly authorised by requisite authorities.

¶28

3.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 26^th September, 2003, held the commercial complex to have been illegally constructed and therefore directed demolition of the same. Accordingly, the Municipal Authorities demolished the commercial complex.

¶29

3.3. Under the aforesaid circumstances, various aggrieved buyers filed petitions against the OP before the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter, the “ MRTP Commission ”) by filing petitions against the OP. However, the Informants were not a party to these proceedings. The erstwhile MRTP Commission, vide its orders dated 24^th April, 2007 and 2^nd August, 2007, directed the OP to refund

¶30

Case Nos. 67-73 of 2017

¶31

Page 4 of 6

¶32

the principal amount. But there was no decision with respect to interest, if any, payable to the buyers.

¶33

3.4. The OP issued a letter dated 18^th September, 2007 to the Informants or their predecessors, as the case may be, stating that the principal amount was already paid and that they are only entitled to get/receive their interest on principal amount and decision on the same was pending in the erstwhile MRTP Commission. The OP agreed to pay interest on the principal amount at the rate decided by the erstwhile MRTP Commission. Accordingly, the Informants approached the OP vide application dated 20^th November, 2007. Although, the OP paid the principal amount, no interest was paid to the Informants.

¶34

3.5. Thereafter, the aggrieved parties filed applications under Section 12B of the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, 1969, which was decided by the erstwhile Hon’ble Competition Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, the “ CompAT ”) being the successor of erstwhile MRTP Commission. The Hon’ble CompAT, while disposing of the 35 applications filed in terms of Section 12-B of the MRTP Act, 1969, vide its order dated 29^th March, 2010, directed the OP to pay interest @15% from the date of deposit of principal amount till the date the principal amount was to be refunded by the OP.

¶35

3.6. Even after the order dated 29^th March, 2010 of the Hon’ble CompAT, the OP did not pay interest to the Informants.

¶36

The Informants have alleged that the interest was paid to other buyers but the same was not paid to them. This has been alleged to be unfair and in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. The Informants have prayed the Commission to direct the OP to pay interest at the rate of fifteen

¶37

Case Nos. 67-73 of 2017

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

percent for the period between the date of deposit of principal amount by them and the refund of the same by OP as well as interest at the same rate for the subsequent period also.

¶40

The Commission has perused the information and other material available on record. The Informants are primarily aggrieved by the non-payment of interest amount by OP. Apart from such allegation, no material, whatsoever, has been brought on record to suggest the dominance of the OP in any of the potential relevant market, which are relevant considerations under the Act. Based on the material available on record, the Commission finds no prima-facie case of contravention of Section 4 of the Act. Further, the mere issue of non-payment of interest and the remedies sought by the Informants are beyond the purview of the Commission.

¶41