Case No. 33 of 2013. Case: : Rajiv Kumar Chauhan Vs M/s. BPTP Ltd.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 33 of 2013 |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, (Chairman), H.C. Gupta, Member (G), Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D) |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 â Sections 26(2), 4 |
| Citation | 2013 CompLR 705 (CCI) |
| Judgement Date | July 31, 2013 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Judgment:
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
-
Informant booked a residential unit in a project called "Park Elite Floors, Parkland, Faridabad" being developed by OP in Faridabad. The initial cost of the said unit was declared to public at large Rs. 25.56 lacs + EDC & IDC (external and internal development charges). OP launched the units with payment plan for the potential buyers who were supposed to make 35% payment before the Floor Buyers' Agreement ('the Agreement') could be entered into. The informant and OP entered into the Agreement after 35% of purchase price was paid by the informant. The Agreement laid down the terms and conditions required to be complied by both the parties. The informant alleged several malpractices on the part of OP and alleged that OP abused its dominant position in the market of residential flats in the area of Faridabad. The informant prayed the Commission to initiate investigation on the abusive conduct of OP in the relevant market. The Commission perused the information on record and heard the informant. Dealing with section 4 of the Act, the facts and circumstances of the matter suggests that the relevant market in the present case is the market of 'development and sale of residential apartments in Faridabad'. The informant alleged that the opposite party, being a dominant player in the relevant market, abused its dominant position by unilaterally changing terms of the agreement, increasing super built up area, illegitimately demanding cost escalation charges, delaying possession etc. Before considering alleged abuses, the dominance of opposite party needs to be established. The documents submitted by the informant to establish dominance of OP are draft red herring prospectus, some newspaper articles etc. None of these substantiates informant's case. The draft red herring prospectus gives an overview of the booming real estate industry to attract investors for OP's public issue of equity shares. Self claim of being the 'biggest' or 'No. 1' by companies do not amount to establishment of dominance as required under the Act. The Explanation to section 4 categorically states
(a) "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; or
(ii) affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.
-
Applying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial