Case No. 62/2010. Case: In Re: Cdr. Kuldeepak Mittal (Retd.) and Ors. Vs. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 62/2010 |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 4, 19, 26(1) and 26(2); Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 |
| Citation | 2011 CompLR 53 (CCI) |
| Judgement Date | January 24, 2011 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Judgment:
-
The present information has been filed under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act) against Mr. Kuldeepak Mittal and others, who are engaged in the business of developing residential apartments for government officials in Noida and Gurgaon, in the name of Government Officials Welfare Organizations (GOWO) which is a trust.
-
The facts of the case, in brief, as provided by the information provider are as follows:
2.1 As per the information provider, the Party Nos. 1 to 8 are the trustees of GOWO. The information provider has submitted that the Party No 1 to 8 claim to have formed a welfare Trust to serve the Central & State Government employees in particular, by creating a Public Trust (Non-Government Organization) under the provisions of Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. Party No. 9 is the Director of Gurgaon Projects of GOWO. Party No 10 and Party No 11 are the principal officers of a company in the name and style of Corona Housing Pvt. Ltd., which is constructing apartments in the Gurgaon projects of GOWO. Party No 12 is the statutory body authorizing and granting licenses to builders and colonizers to construct building in the state of Haryana.
2.2 The information provider has submitted that he had applied for allotment of a residential flat measuring 2696 Sq Ft for the total sale consideration of Rs. 65,90,000 and apartment bearing No. KG 06 at Sector 37-C, Gurgaon, Near Sector 9 &10, GOWO project, Phase-II was allotted to him against the advance payment of Rs. 10,30,000.
2.3 It has been alleged by the information provider that Party No 1 has unilaterally increased the cost of the flat on the pretext of increased area and Preferential Location Charges (PLC).
2.4 As per the information provider, on receipt of communication for submission of necessary documents to complete the execution of the Flat Buyer's Agreement, he submitted the same within the given time. Despite the documents having been submitted, the information provider again received a letter from the Party No 1 to submit the documents to execute the Agreement and thereafter Party No 1, on the assertion of non submission of documents refunded the initial down payment to the information provider.
2.5 It has been alleged by the information provider that Party No 1 to 8 have created a Trust which has neither been allotted any land nor do they have any sanctions or permissions to book flats for government servants. The information provider alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial