Case No. 10/2012. Case: Iqbal Singh Gumber & Mrs. Hardeep Kaur Vs Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. & Others. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 10/2012 |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, H.C. Gupta, Member (G), R. Prasad, Member (R), P.N. Parashar, Member (P), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(4), 19(4)(f), 19(4)(g), 2(u), 26(1), 26(2), 4(2) |
| Judgement Date | August 07, 2012 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Judgment:
-
I do not agree with the majority order for the reasons given below. The facts of the case are not required to be discussed again as they have already been discussed in the majority order. The main reason for closing the case is that M/s Purearth Infrastructure Ltd. was not held to be a dominant player as its market share was very low and further M/s Purearth was not dominant player in the real estate in Delhi & NCR. The majority has held that the informants were not able to produce any record to show the dominant position of the opposite parity. For this reason the case has been closed by the majority by an order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act.
-
I have a different view on this subject. In the Competition Act dominant position means a position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market in India which enables it to (i) operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market (ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. Now in this case the issue is regarding construction of a mall/commercial complex at Central square, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. Thus, the OP in this case was rendering a service to the informants as defined under Section 2(u) of 'e-to petition4Act. Service itself includes a time concept and the delivery, of premises was to be given to the informants within a certain period. But till today the construction has not started. In fact the informants had booked the premises on April 2006 and the entire payment was completed by 20th July, 2008. But instead of delivery of the shops, even the construction has not been started. The question is whether it is a case of abuse of dominance.
-
Under the Competition Act the relevant market defines a market with reference to the relevant product market or the relevant geographic market or with reference to both the markets. In this particular case the construction was to be made over a land area of nearly 66 acres. The relevant geographic market would therefore be the land area where the construction was to take place, as the provision of services on this land was distinctly homogenous and can be distinguished from the conditions prevailing in the neighbouring areas. The relevant product market means a market comprising all those services which are considered interchangeable or...
To continue reading
Request your trial