Case No. 46 of 2012. Case: Dinesh Trehan Vs M/s. DLF Ltd.. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 46 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Pramod Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri R. Narain, Ms. Kanika Gombar and Ms. Nimita Kaul, Advocates
JudgesAshok Chawla, (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 27, 4, 4(2)(a)(i)
Judgement DateJuly 01, 2013
CourtCompetition Commision of India


Order under Section 27 of the Competition Act, 2002

  1. The present information has been filed by Shri Dinesh Trehan ('the informant') under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against M/s. DLF Ltd. ('the opposite party'/DLF) alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. Shorn of details, facts, the informant booked an apartment in the project The Belaire launched by the opposite party in Gurgaon (Haryana). The opposite party subsequently cancelled the allotment forfeiting an amount of Rs. 87 lakhs deposited by the informant with the opposite party. Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the informant has filed the instant information alleging abuse of dominant position by the opposite party. The informant has also challenged various clauses in the Apartment Buyer's Agreement entered into between it and DLF as anti-competitive and in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

  2. The matter was considered by the Commission in its ordinary meeting held on 19.09.2012 when the counsel for the informant made oral submissions in support of the allegations made in the information. The Commission by its order of even date observed that the facts of the instant case were similar to the facts in Case No. 19 of 2010 (Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Limited, HUDA & Ors.). Accordingly, the Commission directed the DG to cause an investigation to be made into the matter.

  3. In terms of the aforesaid order of the Commission, an investigation was conducted by the DG and an investigation report was submitted to the Commission on 18.01.2013. The DG report was considered by the Commission in its ordinary meeting held on 13.02.2013. The Commission vide its order of even date decided to forward copies of the report of the DG to the informant and the opposite party for filing their replies/objections thereto, if any. The parties were also granted opportunity of oral hearing, if so desired. Accordingly, the counsel appearing for the parties made oral submissions before the Commission on 21.03.2013. No written submissions were filed by the parties. After hearing the submissions, the Commission decided to pass appropriate order in due course.

  4. It may be observed that the DG made a detailed comparison of the issues projected in the present matter with the issues decided in Belaire Owners' Association v. DLF Limited, HUDA & Ors., Case No. 19 of 2010 and opined that there were no...

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