Case No. 15/2011. Case: Balabhadra Residency Flat Owners Welfare Association Vs A.V. Ravindranath Rao, Prop. Bhargravarama Constructions. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 15/2011 |
| Judges | H.C. Gupta, P.N. Parashar, Geeta Gouri, Anurag Goel and M.L. Tayal, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Section 19 |
| Judgement Date | July 05, 2011 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
-
The present matter has been considered by the Commission on the basis of information dated 08.04.2011, received under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from Balabhadra Residency Flat Owners Welfare Association, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "Informant") against A.V. Ravindranath Rao, Prop M/s Bhargravarama Constructions, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "Opposite Party") alleging that the said opposite party is indulging in certain unfair trade practices.
-
The facts of the case and allegations in the matter in brief, are as under:
2.1. The Informant is a registered flat owner's welfare association under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. The Opposite Party is a construction company engaged in development of multistoried residential complex in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
2.2. It is submitted by the Informant that the Opposite Party has taken two plots of land of the Informant (comprising of seven legal heirs) having two structures in it admeasuring 300 sq.yds and 200 sq.yds located at Plot No. 55/A and Plot No. 61/1 respectively at New Nallakunta, Hyderabad for development of a multistoried residential complex. In turn, the Opposite Party has assured the Informant that they will get 50% of total built up area in the multistoried residential complex.
2.3. As per the Informant, the Opposite Party has assured the legal heirs of each of the said plots that they will get more constructed area than the present structure. Further, the Opposite Party assured the Informant that it will pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to each of the legal heirs as compensation for house rent till the date of handing over the constructed area. Accordingly, both the Informant and the Opposite Party entered into an agreement-cum-GPA on 24.01.2008 in this regard and thereafter a sale deed was executed in favour of the Opposite Party on 25.02.2010.
2.4. It is alleged by the Informant that the Opposite Party, in compliance of the assurance, paid Rs. 10,000/-per month to each of the members of the Informant till March, 2010 only. It has stopped the payment thereafter to the Informant which is contrary to the GPA cum agreement entered into between the Informant and the Opposite Party which stipulated that the compensation for house rent was to be paid till handing over the agreed 50% built up area in the building constructed on the said land.
-
The Commission considered the present matter in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial