Case No. 77 of 2014. Case: Ankit Jain Vs BPTP Limited. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 77 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: A.K. Goyal, Advocate
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital and U.C. Nahata, Members
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d)
Judgement DateDecember 30, 2014
CourtCompetition Commision of India


Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") by Shri Ankit Jain(hereinafter referred to as 'Informant') against M/s. BPTP Ltd., (OP 1) and its Chairman/Managing Director (OP 2) alleging, inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act in the matter.

  2. Facts of the case, as stated in the information, may be briefly noted:

    2.1 The Informant submitted that he purchased a residential plot in "Amstoria" (the 'Project') being developed by the Opposite Parties in Sector 102, Gurgaon district of Haryana.

    2.2 The Informant has alleged to have paid Rs. 2,48,29,419/- towards the total sale price including preferential location charges of Rs. 10,89,000/-. It is stated that the Informant requested the Opposite Parties for providing him 'Verification Report' as he desired to transfer the said plot. He even paid the requisite fees of Rs. 2,600/- to the Opposite Parties for providing the Verification Certificate.

    2.3 It is alleged that the Opposite Parties had shown an amount of Rs. 22,02,663/- as outstanding towards additional preferential location charges in the Verification Report. As per the agreed terms and conditions for purchase of the said plot, the Informant was required to pay the preferential location charges only once and the same was already paid by him to the Opposite Parties. Despite raising the issue of additional preferential location charges before the Opposite Parties, OP1 alleged to have continued to pressurise him for the payment of additional preferential location charges and in case of failure he should face the consequences of cancellation of the said plot and forfeiture of the amount paid by him.

    2.4 The Informant has submitted that he, vide letter dated 04/06/2014, had specifically mentioned that in case the demand of additional preferential charges is not withdrawn/revoked, the Informant would no longer be interested in allotment of the said plot and that the entire amount paid by him for the said plot may be refunded to him along with interest @ 18%. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties did not respond to his letter dated 04/06/2014 till the date of submission of this information. It is further averred that the Opposite Parties were putting pressure on the Informant to pay the alleged additional amount. Despite the fact that the rights to transfer the said plot were assigned to him by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT