Case No. 54 of 2013. Case: A resident of Eldeco Elegance Vs Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd.. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 54 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 - Sections 19(4), 19(5), 2(r), 26(1), 26(2), 4, 4(2)(a) |
| Judgement Date | October 03, 2013 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Order:
Order under Section 26(2) of The Competition Act, 2002
-
The OP had been active in real estate development in north India and developing projects in Panipat, Sonepat, Ludhiana, Jhansi, Neemrana, Jalandhar, Noida and Lucknow. In September 2006, the OP launched the Eldeco Elegance residential complex project comprising residential flats, club and a commercial complex in Lucknow. The informant had booked a flat in this project in 2006. As per the facts stated in the information, the project was to be completed in three years i.e. by September 2009 but the same was not completed yet. The informant alleged that the OP abused its dominant position in dictating the terms of the sale agreement which on one hand put no obligation on OP for delays and other failures and liabilities and on the other hand put the apartment allottees in an extremely disadvantageous position. Also the action of the builder pursuant to the terms of such agreement was unfair and discriminatory, violating the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 ('the Act').
-
The following terms of the agreement and actions inter alia of the OP were alleged to be in violation of section 4 of Act.
i. The builder has the right to reject and refuse the execution of agreement with the buyers without assigning any reason. Allottees, on the other hand, have no right to make any changes in the agreement, however justified they may be.
ii. The project promised to be completed within three years i.e. by September 2009 was not completed even after six years. Of the 336 flats, possession of only around 250 flats had been handed over to their owners. The installments were collected from all the allottees as per the original schedule despite the delay in construction.
iii. Any delay on the part of buyer in making payment of installments entailed an interest @ 18% but when the project was delayed by the builder, the compensation to be given to the buyers on the amount paid by the buyers as the cost of the flat was minimal @ 5%.
iv. While giving the letter for the final payment, the OP raised demand for unverified additional super area of the flat. The calculation of super area was not provided to the buyers. The details of calculation pertaining to additional demand were never made known to the buyers. At the time of final payment, the OP abused its dominant position by demanding extra payment for areas ranging from 80 sq. ft to around 158 sq ft from the residents.
v. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial