Case No. 47 of 2015. Case: Babita Roy Vs Swadesh Developers and Colonisers and Ors.. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 47 of 2015
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, Augustine Peter, U.C. Nahta and M.S. Sahoo, Members
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 3, 4
Judgement DateJuly 02, 2015
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 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by Ms. Babita Roy (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') against M/s. Swadesh Developers and Colonisers through its proprietor Mr. Nitin Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as 'OP-1') and Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'OP-2') alleging, inter-alia, contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

  2. Facts of the case may be briefly noted:

  3. As per the Information, the Informant had booked a duplex in "Red Square" (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"), developed by OP-1 in Bhopal and had paid Rs. 7,00,000 (i.e. 10% of the total cost of the property) as booking amount. Thereafter, the Informant entered into an "agreement to sell" (hereinafter referred to as "agreement") on 28.02.2015 with OP-1 for purchase of the said duplex.

  4. It is alleged that despite lower interest rate offered by Union Bank of India (UBI) and State Bank of India (SBI), OP-1 had insisted upon the Informant to avail home loan facility from OP-2 only else OP-1 would forfeit the said booking amount. The Informant has stated that she had contacted OP-1 several times to obtain necessary documents required for availing home loan from UBI or SBI, but OP-1 refused to provide the same. It is averred that in the absence of required documents, the Informant could not avail home loan from UBI or SBI.

  5. It is submitted that a demand letter dated 11.03.2015 was sent by OP-1 to the Informant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 63 lakhs along with service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,16,300/- before the date of registration of the duplex i.e., 28.03.2015. It is further stated that service tax was waived-off by OP-1later under protest.

  6. It is stated that the Informant had sent a notice dated 23.03.2015 to OP-1 to either provide her with the necessary documents or else cancel the agreement and refund the booking amount paid by her. Further it is stated that the Informant through her counsel had sent an email to OP-2 informing about the discrepancies in the documents provided by OP-1 for availing a home loan. In response to the said email, Informant's counsel had received a legal notice from OP-1.

  7. It has been submitted that OP-1 has not refunded the booking amount till the date of filing of the information which is causing mental torture and harassment to the Informant...

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