Case No. 56 of 2014. Case: Aanchal Khetarpal Vs Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.. Competition Commision of India
|Case Number:||Case No. 56 of 2014|
|Party Name:||Aanchal Khetarpal Vs Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.|
|Judges:||Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, M.L. Tayal, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital and Augustine Peter, Members|
|Issue:||Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(1), 4, 4(2)(a)(i)|
|Judgement Date:||September 24, 2014|
|Court:||Competition Commision of India|
Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
The present information has been filed by Ms. Aanchal Khetarpal, ("the Informant") under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ("the Act") against M/s. Jaiparkash Associates Limited ("the Opposite Party") alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.
The Opposite Party is a company engaged in real estate business in Noida and Greater Noida. The Informant is a buyer of plot in the project 'Kensington Park' at Jaypee Greens, Noida, Uttar Pradesh developed by the Opposite Party.
As per the information, in the said project of the Opposite Party the Informant had booked a plot bearing No. H-033 and measuring 127.93 sq. mtrs for a consideration of Rs. 61,93,990/-. Sum of Rs. 11,57,598/-; which is nearly 25% of the total consideration; has already been paid to the Opposite Party.
As per the "Standard Term and Condition or Provisional Allotment of Plot at Jaypee Greens, Noida" ('Agreement'), allotment of the above said plot was provisional and the Opposite Party was supposed to hand over the possession of the plot to the Informant within 12 month from the issuance of the allotment letter. However, when the Informant raised her concerns for the delay in giving possession, instead of providing a suitable reply, the Opposite Party cancelled her allotment.
The Informant has claimed to make numerous communications with the Opposite Party in this regard but received no satisfactory reply. Instead, a refund cheque of Rs. 5,38,199/- dated 20.09.2013 was sent after a period of more than 30 months from the date of issue of cancellation letter. The Informant objected to this refund and has not en-cashed the refund cheque till date. It is averred that a sum of Rs. 11,57,598/- still remains with the Opposite Party in spite of a cancellation of allotment of the said plot.
The Informant has alleged that the Opposite Party is abusing its dominant position by enforcing one sided terms and conditions in the 'Agreement'. It is alleged that the act of cancellation of plot by the Opposite Party was to cover its own faults which is gross misuse of its position of dominance.
The Informant stated that in case nos. 72 of 2011, 16 of 2012, 34 of 2012, 53 of 2012 and 45 of 2013 the Commission had formed a prima facie opinion that the Opposite Party was in a dominant position in the relevant market of provision of services for development and sale of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL