Amit Mittal v. M/s Dlf Limited & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission dismissed an application alleging anti-competitive practices by DLF. The Commission held that DLF did not possess a dominant position in the Gurgaon residential apartment market during the relevant period due to a fragmented market with many competitors, thus no abuse of dominance could be established.
What did the court decide?
The case was ordered to be closed under Section 26(6) of the Act as the contravention of Section 4 was not established.
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.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 73 of 2014
In Re :
Amit Mittal BD-57, Vishakha Enclave Pitampura New Delhi -110088.
Informant
And
DLF Limited Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor Arjun Marg, Phase-I, DLF City Gurgaon - 122002. Opposite Party No. 1
DLF New Gurgaon Home Developers Pvt. Limited 1-E, Jhandewalan Extension
New Delhi – 110055 Opposite Party No. 2
CORAM Mr. Sudhir Mital Chairperson Mr. Augustine Peter Member Mr. U. C. Nahta Member
Justice G. P. Mittal Member
Case No. 73 of 2014 Page 1 of 22
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the OP group (DLF group) held a dominant position in the market for provision of services for development and sale of residential apartments/flats in Gurgaon during the relevant period.
Whether the alleged unfair and discriminatory terms in the agreement constituted an abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Amit Mittal
- respondent
DLF Limited
- respondent
DLF New Gurgaon Home Developers Pvt. Limited
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1
- Order 2 — this page
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court