Case Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of 2014. Case: In Re: Himalaya Realestate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commision of India

Case Number:Case Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of 2014
Party Name:In Re: Himalaya Realestate Pvt. Ltd. Vs
Counsel:For Appellant: J.M. Kalia, Aadil Ali and Eti Sinha Advocates
Judges:Ashok Chawla, (Chairman), Anurag Goel, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mittal and Augustine Peter, Members
Issue:Competition Laws
Judgement Date:July 02, 2014
Court:Competition Commision of India

Decision:

1. The present information(s) relate to same allegations against the OP filed by 3 different set of informants u/s. 19(1)(a) of the Act. Briefly, the case pertains to alleged abuse of dominant position under section 4 of the Act by OP with respect to its residential project in Greater Noida, UP. Since the matters pertain to same allegations, they are hereby clubbed and disposed off through a common order.

2. Briefly, OP, a real estate company incorporated under the Companies Act, floated a brochures for offering booking of flats in its residential project namely Himalaya Pride in Greater Noida West, UP ('the Project'), comprising of 2/3 bedroom apartments. Through the brochure circulated by OP, flats of four different super areas in Tower A & B were offered in the said Project. Relying on the representations made by OP in its various advertisements, the informants booked a flat each in OP's Project by opting construction linked plan ('CLP') on 28.09.2012 through an application cum registration form.

3. The informants submitted that at the time of booking, it was represented that there would be 14 floors in each tower 'A' & 'B' and accordingly a CLP was designed to ensure payment by informants spread evenly throughout the construction of the towers. It was also mentioned in the brochure (application cum registration form) that 18% interest would be charged on delayed payment on part of the allottees. However, it was submitted, that subsequently the informants received another application-cum-registration form dated 04.03.2013 from the OP containing detailed terms and conditions which were inconsistent with the earlier application cum registration form dated 28.09.2012.

4. It was also contended that a fresh price-list and brochure pertaining to the same project was released by OP whereby not only the price was hiked but also the floors in the tower 'A' & 'B' were increased from the earlier 14 floors to 19 floors. However, the CLP remained the same meaning thereby that though the Informants would pay the entire amount up to the construction of 14 floors; the OP will continue to construct the towers even thereafter up to 19 floors. The informant is primarily aggrieved by change in the terms of allotment through application cum registration form dated 04.03.2013, whereby the number of floors was increased from 14 to 19, the interest rate payable by the informant for delay in payment was increased from 18% to 24% per annum, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial