Case No. 35 of 2015. Case: Dreams Aakruti Vs Dreams Group and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 35 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Abhishek Khare, Advocate and Mahesh Bhange, Chairman of the Informant Society |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta and M.S. Sahoo, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 19(3), 26(2), 3, 3(4), 4 |
| Judgement Date | June 30, 2015 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act 2002
-
The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") by Dreams Aakruti Plot No. 2, Building ABC Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') represented through Mr. Mahesh Vijay Bhanagay and Mr. Sujay Sukar Kothari against Dreams Group (hereinafter referred to as 'OP 1') and Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'OP 2') alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act.
-
As per the information, the Informant is an association of the residents of 'Dreams Aakruti' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') developed by OP 1. It is submitted that the entire premises has 13 buildings with approximately 900 flats.
-
It is alleged that OP 1 is abusing its dominant position by not providing potable water, required for daily consumption, to the residents of the society. It is averred that OP 1 has not obtained 'Occupation Certificate' from OP 2 and had coerced the buyers for taking possession of the flats in the society.
-
It is submitted that OP 2 is the sole governing authority in the city of Pune and thus attains a position of dominance through its policies. OP 2 is stated to be responsible for making arrangements for the provision of water and sanitary requirements in Pune. It is further submitted that OP 1 has given an affidavit to OP 2, without the knowledge of the Informant, committing therein that in case of any shortfall in the supply of water by OP 2, OP 1 will make arrangements for the provision of supply of water and sanitary requirements to the residents of the society. It is alleged that the conduct of OP 2 to accept such an affidavit and leaving the residents of the society at the mercy of OP 1 amounts to abuse of its dominant position by adopting unfair practices.
-
The Informant has also alleged that the omission and commission on the part of OPs have resulted in appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC).
-
The Informant has delineated the relevant market as "the entire housing complex by the name and style of Dreams Aakruti situated at Kalepadal, Hadapasar in Pune". It is submitted by the Informant that the present case relates to the secondary market where the buyers book almost the constructed apartments/flats or those which are on the verge of completion. The Informant has placed reliance on the order passed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial