Case No. 25 of 2012. Case: M/s Vindato Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ashok Vijhay Jain Vs M/s Vaidehi-Akash Housing Private Limited. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 25 of 2012
JudgesAshok 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)
IssueCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 19(1)(a), 26(2)
Judgement DateJune 29, 2012
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

  1. The present information has been filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') by M/s Vindato Investment Pvt. Ltd. ('the informant No. 1') and Shri Ashok Vijhay Jain ('the informant No. 2'] against M/s Vaidehi-Akash Housing Private Limited ('the opposite party'). At the outset, it would be appropriate to note the prayers made by the informants whereby the following directions have been sought against the opposite party:

    (a) to pay compensation to the informant No. 1 for conspiracy, economic offences, fraud, cheating, unfair trade practices and intentional misrepresentation with interest.

    (b) to pay compensation to the informant No. 1 for conspiracy, economic offences, fraud, cheating, unfair trade practices and intentional misrepresentation with interest.

    (c) To conduct investigation against the opposite party for acts of conspiracy, economic offences, fraud, cheating, unfair trade practices and intentional misrepresentations etc.

    Briefly stated, the informant Nos. 1 and 2 appear to have 'purchased' eight (8) and four (4) flats respectively from the opposite party in a project 'Sagar Sahawas Colony' located at Andheri (West), Mumbai. It is averred that the informant No. 1 purchased the flats vide Agreements to Sale dated 05.09.2008 and 31.09.2009. The informant No. 2 purchased the flats vide allotment letter dated 27.06.2008. The informant No. 2 is in individual and is stated to look after the day to day business activity of the informant No. 1 company.

  2. The gravamen of the information is the alleged inordinate delay in executing the said project by the opposite party. The informants assert that they were entitled to have the afore-mentioned agreements specifically performed by the opposite party and the informants, at all material times, have been and are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreements.

  3. Further, grievance has been made by the informants about abuse of dominant position. It is averred that the opposite party had imposed' highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable conditions on the informants which had 'serious adverse effects and ramification on the rights' of the informants being in contravention of 'various statutes'.

  4. Grievance is also made of the fact that the opposite party fraudulently concealed essential information which led the informants to enter into the agreements. The informants had no option but to accept in toto and give assent to the agreements even though the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT