Case No. 24/2013. Case: Mr. Sumit Sahni and Mrs. Anumita Sahni Vs Sumel Heights Pvt. Limited and Vatika Limited. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 24/2013 |
| Judges | For Appellant: Shri R.D. Makheeja, Advocate |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 26(1), 26(2), 3, 4 |
| Judgement Date | July 01, 2013 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of The Competition Act, 2002
-
The informants alleged abuse of dominant position by the OPs with respect to sale of residential units in their low rise housing project, Arcadia in sectors 83 and 84, Gurgaon, (the 'Project') Haryana, abutting Gurgaon-Dwarka expressway. The informants contended that the OPs failed to commence construction as well as complete the project within the schedule time. The Informants alleged that the OPs were engaged in business of development and sale of housing projects and sale of residential flats. OP 1 had offered residential units on land for which License had been issued in name of the OP2, a dominant player in the relevant market since OP2 had about 45 projects in different categories in and around Gurgaon-Dwarka expressway. The OPs had entered into an agreement inter se under which OP2 granted rights over the land, on which Project was to be developed by OP1, with the condition that OP1 would pay certain share of its profits to OP2. The informants alleged that they had seen the above said agreement between the OPs but a copy of the agreement was not filed with the information as they did not have access to the agreement.
-
The OP1 invited offers for booking apartments/floors for project in 2008 on basis of representations that License had been issued by District Town and Country Planner, Government of Haryana to the OP2. Representations were also made that there was heavy demand for the Project and residential units were available only on re-sale and OP1's group entity SAS Group was co-promoter of Medanta Medicity Hospital. The informants had applied and were allotted a residential floor in the Project.
-
The informants made payment of 20% of sale price within 2 months from date of booking. At the time of further demand of 15% of sale price, assurance was given by OP1 to Informants that construction of project would start by January 2011 and be completed within scheduled time. The Informants, sought documents of the project from the OPs to enable them to obtain home loan, but despite repeated requests of Informants, no documents were provided by the OPs.
-
The Informants further contended that OPs had imposed on informant and other allotees, a one sided agreement, which was anti-competitive and violative of the provisions of the Act. Informants stressed upon certain clauses of the agreement, which allowed OP1 to allot residential units at its sole discretion and if at any...
To continue reading
Request your trial