Case No. 34 of 2013. Case: Casa Paradiso Owner's Welfare Association Vs M/s. Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 34 of 2013 |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, Geeta Gouri, Member, Mr. Anurag Goel, Member, M.L. Tayal, Member and S.N. Dhingra, J. (Retd.) (Member) and S.L. Bunker, Member |
| Issue | Competition Laws |
| Judgement Date | September 02, 2013 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
-
Project styled Casa Paradiso (Hyderabad) was launched by Lodha Group through its Associate Company - Sanathnagar Enterprises Ltd. (OP) in October 2010 for which bookings were made (after paying the booking amount) on the basis of a brochure depicting the broad layout, floor plans of various sizes of the apartments. Agreement for Sale ('Agreement') was executed between the individual Purchasers and OP after a lapse of considerable time and was allegedly different on many counts from the promises made at the time of booking of the apartments. The informant is primarily aggrieved because of such inconsistencies and unilateral alteration in the oral assurances made by the OP which vitiated the mutual trust and confidence. Briefly, the informant submitted that the executed Agreement was one-sided and highly in favour of the seller containing wrong facts e.g. buyers (like informant) verified and satisfied themselves regarding the approval plan, necessary approvals etc., whereas in reality nothing was shown or discussed with the said buyers. The brochure which was circulated did not contain any information on the vital issue like the quality and quantity of potable water. Club House, which was, originally, planned to be located within the campus, was shifted to premises across the road. Handing of the flats was delayed progressively - thereby resulting in significant financial losses to purchasers. There was huge difference between the penalty clauses applicable on the purchasers (@18%) and the OP (@9%). Also, the buyers were prohibited from visiting the construction site under the pretext of safety. All this, the informant argued, amounted to abuse of dominant position by the OP which is prohibited by the Act.
-
The relevant product market indicated by the informant was market for 'provision of services towards development of residential apartments'. The 'relevant geographic market' in the extant case was stated to be Hyderabad. In this relevant market, the OP allegedly held a dominant position pursuant to its market share and economic strength. The informant substantiated this argument by highlighting the claims of OP in its draft red herring prospectus where the OP had stated that it is the major real estate developer in Mumbai region having almost 38 projects in Mumbai and 1 project each in Hyderabad, Pune and Lonavala etc. Informant also pointed at some newspaper reports where Lodha group was mentioned as one of the top real estate...
To continue reading
Request your trial