Case No. 40 of 2014. Case: Deepak Kumar Jain Vs TDI Infrastructure Ltd.. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 40 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Jeevan Prakash, Advocate
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, M.L. Tayal, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital and Augustine Peter, Members
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2), 4
Judgement DateSeptember 24, 2014
CourtCompetition Commision of India


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

  1. Shri Deepak Kumar Jain and Shri Manoj Kumar Jain (the "Informants") have filed the instant information under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") against M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and others 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 Opposite Party No. 1, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., is a public limited company engaged in the business development of real estate. The Opposite Party No. 2, Town and Country Planning Haryana, is a department of the Government of Haryana responsible for regulated urban development in the State and the Opposite Party No. 3, Haryana Urban Development Authority, is a statutory body constituted under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and is responsible for planned development of urban areas in the State of Haryana. The Informants are the buyers of residential plots in the integrated township project ("the Project") developed by the Opposite Party No. 1 at Kundli in the Sonepat district of Haryana.

    2.2 In the said project, the Informants booked four plots for which they had paid about 79.80% of the total consideration to the Opposite Party No. 1. It is the case of the Informants that even though they had paid the charges towards preferential location of the plots, the Opposite Party No. 1 allotted them the plots which are of ordinary location in the backside of the colony. On questioning the said allotment and asked to adjust the money taken as preferential charges towards the outstanding balance, the Opposite Party No. 1 instead kept on adding additional charges on the Informants which significantly inflated their outstanding balance.

    2.3 It is averred in the information that the Opposite Party No. 1 had threatened the Informants that holding charges of Rs. 100/- per square yard shall be payable in case the outstanding balance is not made on or before 15.03.2010. However, on their visit to the site of the project, the Informants found that the demand for the outstanding amount by the Opposite Party No. 1 was premature. Also, the Informants found that the Opposite Party No. 1 had not obtained the necessary statutory permissions required for developing the project. On demanding the certificate from Haryana Government regarding compliance of statutory requirements for development of the colony, the Opposite Party No. 1 asked them either to pay the amount as per the demand letters and have the plots otherwise have the amount refunded without interest and after deducting the earnest money and other charges.

    2.4 The Informants submitted that the Opposite Party No. 1 deliberately declared them as defaulters and cancelled their allotted plots and forfeited huge amount in the name of earnest money and thereby took away the benefits of capital gains from them. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No. 1 manipulated its account statement more than six times and accordingly demanded...

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