Case No. 45 of 2015. Case: Ess Cee Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs DLF Universal Limited and Ors.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 45 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Harsh Bansal and Subhash Chand Bansal |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital, U.C. Nahta, M.S. Sahoo, Members and G.P. Mittal, J. (Member) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 19(7), 2(r), 26(2), 3, 4 |
| Judgement Date | August 26, 2015 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
The information in the present case has been filed by M/s. Ess Cee Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Signature Securities Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, the 'Informants') under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the 'Act') against M/s. DLF Universal Limited and M/s. DLF Home Developers Limited (hereinafter, 'OPs'/'DLF') alleging, inter alia, contravention of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act in the matter.
-
The Informants are private limited companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has been stated in the information that the Informants have booked an apartment each in the residential project DLF Capital Greens, Phase III, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi developed by DLF. The Informants claimed to have made bookings of the said apartments in September 2010 on the basis of various representations made by DLF and its strong sales network of authorised dealers. DLF promised that the project would be delivered in 33 months.
-
It is alleged that DLF sent demand notices to the Informants on monthly basis immediately after the bookings were made and a penal charges of Rs. 57,479.81/- and Rs. 1,24,582.96/- were levied on the Informant No. 1 and the Informant No. 2 respectively for making delayed payments. The Informants have alleged that the afore-mentioned demand notices were issued by DLF without obtaining the requisite approvals/sanctions for construction. It is also alleged that despite being fully aware that the project would not be delivered on time, DLF regularly raised demand notices and levied delayed charges so as to ensure that the apartment allottees kept on paying money in accordance with its terms and conditions.
-
It is submitted that any refusal to abide by the dictates of DLF was meted with threats of forfeiture of money deposited and cancellation of allotment. In this regard, the Informant No. 2 has cited an instance where its allotment was cancelled by DLF in 2011 on grounds of non-adherence to its payment schedule. However, the allotment was restored after it made the full payment with delayed charges.
-
It is also alleged that the apartment buyers such as the Informants were compelled to sign a one-sided and unfair Apartment Buyers' Agreement (hereinafter, the 'Agreement') under the threat of forfeiture of the money already deposited. Further, the Informants have alleged that DLF unilaterally allotted parking spaces to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial