Xyz (Confidential) v. Emaar India Limited and others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Competition Commission considered an Information alleging abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements by a real estate developer changing villa projects to builder floors. The Commission defined the relevant market but found no prima facie case of dominance or contravention, closing the matter without granting relief. Confidentiality was granted to the informant.
What did the court decide?
Relief sought under Section 33 of the Act is rejected as no prima facie case is made out.
What the court decided
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 10 of 2025
| In Re: | |
|---|---|
| XYZ (Confidential) | Informant |
| And | |
| Emaar India Limited | OP-1 |
| (formally known as Emaar MGF Land Limited) | |
| At Emaar Business Park Mehrauli Gurgaon Road Sikandarpur Chowk, Sector-28, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 |
|
| Emaar India Community Management Private Limited | OP-2 |
| 306-308, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, South Delhi, New Delhi-110017 |
|
| Department of Town and Country Planning, | OP-3 |
| Haryana through its Director at Plot No. 3, | |
| Sec-18A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018 | |
| Senior Town Planner, Gurugram, | OP-4 |
| Department of Town & Country Planning HUDA Complex, Sec-14, Gurugram, Haryana. |
|
| District Town Planner, Gurugram, | OP-5 |
| Department of Town & Country Planning HUDA Complex, Sec-14, Gurugram, Haryana |
|
| Union of India | OP-6 |
| through Chief Secretary, Foreign Investment at DPIIT | |
| Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 | |
| CORAM: | |
| Ms. Ravneet Kaur | |
| Chairperson | |
| Mr. Anil Agrawal Member |
|
| Ms. Sweta Kakkad | |
| Member | |
| Mr. Deepak Anurag | |
| Member |
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
What constitutes the relevant product and geographic market for the development and sale of villas in Gurugram under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002?
Whether the respondents hold a dominant position in the market for the development and sale of villas in Gurugram and if so, whether their conduct violates Section 4 of the Act?
Whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence to establish a contravention of Section 3(4) of the Act regarding anti-competitive arrangements?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
XYZ (Confidential)
- respondent
Emaar India Limited
- respondent
Emaar India Community Management Private Limited
- respondent
Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana
- respondent
Union of India
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- CCI
- Decided on
- · August
- Case no.
- 10/2025
- Topic
- Consumer Protection
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court