Case No. 31/2013. Case: Mr. Achyut P. Rao Vs M/s. Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. represented by Sh. M. K. Jain, Chairman. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 31/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Pal, Advocate |
| Judges | Geeta Gouri, Member, Anurag Goel, Member, M.L. Tayal, Member and S.N. Dhingra, J. (Retd.) (Member) and S.L. Bunker, Member |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19, 19(4), 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 26(1), 26(2), 3, 4 |
| Judgement Date | September 03, 2013 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
The information was filed by Achyut P. Rao ('Informant') under section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') alleging abuse of dominance by Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Limited ('Opposite Party/OP') for adopting anti-competitive practices for the allotment of their designer homes branded as e-homes i.e. electronic/eco-friendly homes (hereinafter referred to as 'e-homes'). The informant is the allottee of two such e-homes, one each in Vaishali and Greater Noida.
-
The Informant alleged that the e-homes developed by OP were to attract buyers who wanted to buy homes pre-fitted with hi-tech gadgets like wifi, finger print security system, parkings etc. and that such pre-fitted gadgets would save the buyer of the home from incurring the cost and inconvenience of getting such gadgets installed later. The informant also contended that the OP created the special category of e-homes and had acquired a 100% dominant status/market share for being the only real estate developer to design and develop such e-homes in Delhi. The Informant further alleged that as a result of the dominance enjoyed by OP, OP started demanding high premiums and forced allottees to sign an Allotment Agreement, after collecting booking amounts from allottees. allottees who refused to sign the Allotment Agreement were threatened with cancellation of allotment. The informant further alleged that contrary to the provisions of U.P. Act, OP took advantage of Allotment Agreement, and changed the layout plan in 2010, against the previous plan sanctioned by UPSIDC in 2008. The Informant contended that the Allotment agreement was in violation of section 3 of the Act as well as provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010(hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act') which imposes obligations upon the builder/promoter/developer to make true disclosure of all details before allotment, but the OP failed to provide all such information to the allottee.
-
The Informant has further stated that as per provisions of the U.P. Act, the OP is required to make disclosure about rights and title to land, details of building in which apartments are proposed to be constructed, encumbrances on land, building, title, interest, nature of fixtures, fittings, amenities, designs and specifications, materials proposed to be used in construction including structural, architectural drawings, layout plans, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial