Case No. 73 of 2014. Case: Amit Mittal Vs DLF Limited and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 73 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta. Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(1), 4, 4(2)(a)(i) |
| Judgement Date | February 04, 2015 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") by Shri Amit Mittal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') against M/s. DLF Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'O.P. 1') and M/s. DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'O.P. 2') (collectively referred to as OPs) alleging, inter alia, abuse of dominant position in development and sale of residential units in Gurgaon in contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.
-
Briefly, O.P. 1 is engaged in the business of development of residential, commercial and retail properties. As per the Annual Report of O.P. 1 for financial year 2012-13, O.P. 1 held 94.02% stake in O.P. 2. As per the scheme of amalgamation/merger dated 30.07.2013 by the High Court of Delhi, O.P. 2 amalgamated with M/s. DLF Home Developers Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of O.P. 1. By virtue of amalgamation, any reference to O.P. 2 would necessarily be construed as referring to M/s. DLF Home Developers Limited also.
-
O.P. 2 launched a residential township by the name of 'Regal Gardens at DLF Garden City' (the 'Project') located in sector 90 of Gurgaon, Haryana consisting of 3BHK and 4BHK apartment units having floor area ranging between 1693 to 2215 square feet. The Informant applied for allotment of an apartment in the above said project and paid earnest money amounting to Rs. 8,59,850. Thereafter, a non-negotiable Apartment Buyer's Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agreement') was executed between the Informant and O.P. 2 on 01.09.2012 and Apartment No. 4/Floor No. 15/Block D was allotted to the Informant.
-
The Informant has alleged that several clauses in the 'Agreement' are violative of provisions of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act, being highly unfair and discriminatory towards the buyers and heavily biased towards O.P. 2. Briefly, the allegations of the Informant, inter alia, are as under:
a) The 'Agreement' is non-negotiable and has to be executed by the Informant within 30 days, failing which the earnest money was liable to be forfeited without any notice by O.P. 2 to the Informant.
b) Clause 1.2 of the 'Agreement' provided for escalation of the price of the apartment if the cost of the materials used in construction and/or labour charges are increased which was fixed arbitrarily by O.P. 2.
c) Clause 1.5 provided for a rebate for early...
To continue reading
Request your trial