Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case No. 14 of 2013. Case: In Re: Mr. Tushar Kanti Dhingra; In Re: M/s. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commision of India

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCase No. 14 of 2013
Party NameIn Re: Mr. Tushar Kanti Dhingra; In Re: M/s. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, H.C. Gupta, Member, Geeta Gouri, Member, Anurag Goel, Member, M.L. Tayal, Member and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(4), 19(5), 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 26(1), 26(2), 3, 3(3), 3(4), 4
Judgement DateApril 10, 2013
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Judgment:

  1. The informant Mr. Tushar Kanti Dhingra filed the instant information against M/s. Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the opposite party' - 'the OP') alleging violation of sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As per the informant, the OP was a real estate company engaged in the business of land identification and acquisition, project planning, designing etc. of residential and commercial buildings.

  2. It is averred by the informant that being allured by residential project of the OP known as in Universal Greens, Faridabad (Haryana) he applied for allotment of Apartment No. 902, A-1 Tower having covered parking space as an indivisible part; on 26.04.2006.

  3. It is stated by the informant that though he had signed a Builder-Buyer-Agreement dated 29.09.2011 with respect to the aforesaid apartment with the OP however the terms of the said agreement were neither read over nor explained to him. As per Clause 3 of the Builder-Buyer agreement dated 29.09.2011 the informant was to pay a basic sale price of Rs. 1,425/- per sq. ft. of the super area i.e. Rs. 15,44,700/- in total. Out of this amount he paid a substantial amount of Rs. 7, 70,909/- to the OP, duly acknowledged by the OP vide its letter dated 16.11.2011.

  4. The informant alleged that though the booking was done by OP way back in the year 2006, but there was hardly any progress in the construction work of the abovementioned project, he therefore did not make any further payment of instalments as his hard earned money was being illegally retained by the OP and not utilized in construction works.

  5. As per the informant on 19.04.2012, the OP, by abusing its dominant position, issued a termination letter to the informant in respect of the abovementioned flat. The informant thereafter made several requests for revocation/ cancellation of termination letter dated 19.04.2012 and also sent a detailed reply dated 03.10.2012 to the termination letter wherein the informant had undertaken to pay the balance instalments. The OP however, did not pay heed to the same. The informant on 24.01.2013 also made police complaints against the OP in this regard.

  6. The informant therefore alleged that the OP abused its dominant position by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions in the Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 29.09.2011. It has been further alleged that the termination letter dated 19.04.2012 amounted to unfair trade...

To continue reading

Request your trial