Case No. 03 of 2014. Case: Shri Avtar Singh Vs M/s. Ansal Township and Land Development Ltd., Sh. Pranav Ansal and Sh. Anil Kumar. Competition Commision of India

Case NumberCase No. 03 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Manish Kapur, Advocate and Mr. Amarjeet Singh
JudgesAshok Chawla, Chairperson, H.C. Gupta, Member (G), R. Prasad, Member (R), P.N. Parashar, Member (P), Dr. Geeta Gouri, Member (GG), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), M.L. Tayal, Member (T) and Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Member (D)
IssueCompetition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 26(2), 3, 3(1), 4
Judgement DateApril 15, 2014
CourtCompetition Commision of India



  1. This case, filed under section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act'), relates to the alleged abuse of dominant position by the Opposite Party No. 1 in allotment of commercial space in its project 'Ansal Highway Plaza', Jalandhar, Punjab.

  2. The Opposite Party No. 1 is stated to be a well known real estate development company in India. The Opposite Party No. 2 is the Managing Director and the Opposite Party No. 3 is the Joint Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Opposite Party No. 1 and both are looking after the day-to-day functioning of the Opposite Party No. 1.

  3. Factual matrix, as culled out from the information and the documents filed therewith, is briefly stated below:

    3.1 It is revealed form the information that the Opposite Party No. 1 along with the land owners Dr. Gurpreet Kaur and Dr. Ranjeet [henceforth, the developer], through a 'Collaboration Agreement' dated 25.11.04, have developed a shopping mall in the name of 'Ansal Highway Plaza' at village Khajuria, Jalandhar--Phagwara, G.T. Road, Kapurthala, Punjab.

    3.2 In the aforesaid project, Ms. Neena Sharma and Ms. Pooja Sharma (original allottees) have booked two commercial space measuring super area of 867.37 sq. ft. and 723.48 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs. 10,40,844/- and Rs. 8,68,176/-. Subsequently, Ms. Neena Sharma and Ms. Pooja Sharma have transferred the said allotment in the name of the Informant.

    3.3 It was agreed between the Opposite Party No. 1 and the original allottees that the allotted space will be leased further to a prospective lessee i.e., a third party, through execution of a lease agreement between the prospective lessee and the developer and the allottees will have no objection whatsoever regarding negotiation of rent and execution of necessary documents in respect thereof. It was also agreed that any tenants suggested by the allottees may be considered by the Opposite Party No. 1.

    3.4 As per the Informant, the allotment letter for the aforesaid commercial space stipulates that the Opposite Party No. 1 will deliver the possession in about 18 months after obtaining all necessary sanctions and approvals from appropriate authorities. If the possession gets delayed due to unreasonable cause, it will pay the rent for the delayed period @ Rs. 37 per sq. ft. It is averred that though the Opposite Party No. 1 had proposed to deliver the possession of the said...

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