Case No. 25 of 2013. Case: DLF City Club Members Welfare Association Vs DLF Recreational Foundation Ltd. and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
|Case Number:||Case No. 25 of 2013|
|Party Name:||DLF City Club Members Welfare Association Vs DLF Recreational Foundation Ltd. and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Shri R.D. Makheeja, Advocate|
|Judges:||Ashok 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)|
|Issue:||Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 19(4), 26(1), 26(2), 4|
|Judgement Date:||July 01, 2013|
|Court:||Competition Commision of India|
Order Under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
The present information was filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') by the informant against the opposite parties alleging inter alia contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act. The informant is an association of members of 'DLF city club' registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. DLF City Club is run and managed by opposite party No. 1. (the OP1)
The opposite party No. 1 is stated to be established by the sister entities/concerns of DLF Ltd. OP-2 is the ultimate holding company of OP1 and engaged in development of residential, office, commercial and retail properties. Opposite party No. 3 is the Head of the Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana. Opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 (the OPs 4 to 6) are the authorities set up by the Government of Haryana under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976.
The informant averred that when members of the association applied for allotment of residential plots/flats in the residential colonies developed by the OP 2, they were promised the facility of a club as a part of community services via advertisements in newspapers and tentative layout plans attached to and forming part of Apartments/Plots Buyers Agreement. It was stated that the cost of the land required for community services was loaded in the cost of land/flat for developing community services for the exclusive use of the residents. However, instead of establishing a club as a part of community services to be managed by the members through a Managing Committee, elected by the Members, the OP was running the club like a Hotel, with misnomer of 'The City Club.'
It was alleged that 'The City Club' was being run as a commercial enterprise and a profit centre, to make huge profits by charging exorbitant membership fee and other charges. The annual subscription fee for existing members was increased exponentially from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 18,000 within a period of 3 years. The members of the Club, resident of DLF colonies &the biggest stakeholders, had absolutely no say in the management of the affairs of the Club, though the Club was on their land as a part of community services in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Rules of 1976...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL