Case No. 42/2011. Case: Mrs. Rajni Kanta Minz Informant D-2, Sector-1, Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Vs Mr. Munna Munda Village-Dungri, P.O: Hatia Distt. Ranchi, Jharkhand, Mr. Vijay Kachchhap Village-Dungri, P.O: Hatia Distt. Ranchi, Jharkhand and Mr. Thale Kachchhap Village-Dungri, P.O: Hatia Distt. Ranchi, Jharkhand. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 42/2011
JudgesAshok Chawla (Chairman), R. Prasad, Geeta Gouri, Anurag Goel and M.L. Tayal, Members
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Section 19(1)(a)
Judgement DateSeptember 13, 2011
CourtCompetition Commision of India

Order:

  1. The present information has been filed by Mrs. Rajni Kanta Minz (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against Mr. Munna Munda (hereinafter referred to as 'Opposite Party No. 1'), Mr. Vijay Kachchhap (hereinafter referred to as 'Opposite Party No. 2') and Mr. Thale Kachchhap (hereinafter referred to as 'Opposite Party No. 3') for their alleged anti-competitive practice in sale of land in Ranchi, Jharkhand.

  2. The facts of the case as stated in the information; in brief, are as under:

    2.1 As per the information, the informant is an Indian citizen having her residence at D-2, Sector-1, Noida. The Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 are the owners of 2.32 Acres land located at Village-Dungri, P.O: Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand. The Opposite Party No. 1 is the Rower of Attorney holder of the said land. The Power of Attorney was given to the Opposite Party No. 1, by the father of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3, for the execution of 'agreement to sale' with the prospective buyers on behalf of him.

    2.2 An 'agreement to sale' was executed between the informant and Opposite Party No. 1 on 27.05.2006, whereby the Opposite Party No. 1, on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3, had agreed to sell 50 decimal of land out of the aforesaid 2.32 Acres of land at the mutual agreed price of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) per decimal.

    2.3 Besides, the informant and the Opposite Party No. 1 had also agreed on the following terms and conditions as stated in the 'agreement to sale':

    (i) The Opposite Party No. 1 was to provide 20 ft. wide approaching road from south of the saleable plot.

    (ii) The informant had to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) as advance and the remaining amount to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed.

    (iii) The Opposite Party No. 1 was to obtain necessary permission from the competent authority to sell the land, under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908, as the land owners belongs to a tribe.

    (iv)The Opposite Party No. 1 was to settle the title over the land.

    2.4 It has been submitted by the informant that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) has already been paid by her to the Opposite Party No. 1 including Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) given at the time of execution of agreement to sale, as part payment towards the total sale value of land.

    2.5...

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