Case Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 of 2016. Case: Abdul Waseem and Ors. Vs DLF Universal Ltd.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 of 2016 |
| Judges | G.P. Mittal, J. (Member), Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4 |
| Judgement Date | December 05, 2016 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The informations in these cases have been filed by Shri Abdul Waseem (in Case Nos. 50 and 52 of 2016), Shri Abdul Basit (in Case Nos. 51 and 53 of 2016) and Shri Abdul Azim (in Case Nos. 54 and 55 of 2016) [collectively, hereinafter, 'Informants'] under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') against DLF Universal Ltd. ('OP') alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
-
As per the informations, each of the Informants has booked one residential flat in each of the two residential projects i.e., Regency Park and Richmond Park developed by OP in Gurgaon. For the apartments/flats in Regency Park, the Builder Buyers' Agreements ('Agreements') were executed in 1995 and for the apartments/flats in Richmond Park, the 'Agreements' were executed in 1996. The payment of the entire sale price for the Regency Park apartments/flats were made till 1998-1999 and payment of the entire sale price for the apartments/flats in Richmond Park were made till 2000-2001. It is averred that the OP did not handover the possession of the apartments to the Informants even after payment of the entire sale price. Instead, the OP demanded unjustified amounts towards holding charges and parking and threatened cancellation of the apartments in the event of non-payment.
-
It is alleged that the OP, vide letter dated 14.05.2003, has cancelled the allotment of the apartments allotted to the Informants in Richmond Park and forfeited the amount paid which is more than 75% of the entire sale consideration. The Informants thereafter filed complaints in this regard before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC) of Haryana on 13.06.2003. SCDRC, in light of the 'Agreement' between the parties and failure of the Informants to make payments as per the terms of the 'Agreement' resulting in cancellation, allowed the OP to forfeit only the earnest money of the Informants.
-
Further, it is stated that the residential apartments in Regency Park project were booked in 1995 and possession of the same were offered by the OP vide letter dated 17.09.1999 subject to payment of outstanding dues and completion of paper work by the Informants. The Informants, vide letter dated 29.07.2000 sent some documents, photographs alongwith a part of the outstanding dues to the OP. Thereafter, vide letter dated 29.11.2000, OP asked the Informants regarding the balance amount and informed...
To continue reading
Request your trial