Case No. 24 of 2014. Case: Shyam Vir Singh Vs DLF Universal Limited. Competition Commision of India
| Case Number | Case No. 24 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person |
| Judges | Ashok Chawla, (Chairman), Anurag Goel, Member (AG), S.L. Bunker and Sudhir Mital, Members |
| Issue | Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 2(r), 2(s), 2(t), 26(1), 4, 4(2)(a)(i) |
| Judgement Date | June 23, 2014 |
| Court | Competition Commision of India |
Judgment:
Order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act 2002
-
The information in this case has been filed by Mr. Shyam Vir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Informant') on 11.04.2014 under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against M/s. DLF Universal Limited, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party'), inter alia, alleging contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
-
Facts, as gathered from the information, may be briefly noted:
2.1. The Informant is a resident of Saket, New Delhi and the Opposite Party is a subsidiary of M/s. DLF Limited As per DLF Annual Report for the FY 2012-13 a renowned real estate development company in India, with 98.43% share capital holding. The Opposite Party is engaged in the business of development of real estate.
2.2. The Informant's family had booked five units of commercial office space aggregating to 9,688 Sq. Ft. in DLF Corporate Greens project at Sector 74A in Gurgaon developed by the Opposite Party. The details of the said booking are as follow: DCG-4 Flat No. 0107, total area 3,184 Sq. Ft. in the name of Mr. Abhijeet Singh booked on 17.09.2010; DCG-2 Flat No. 0215, total area 1,621 Sq. Ft. in the name of Mr. Abhijeet Singh booked on 26.06.2010; DCG-2 Flat No. 0304, total area 1,621 Sq. Ft. in the name of Mr. Abhijeet Singh booked on 27.08.2010; DCG-2 Flat No. 0305, total area 1,621 Sq. Ft. in the name of Ms. Usha Singh booked on 27.08.2010 and DCG-2 Flat No. 0106, total area 1,621 Sq. Ft. in the name of Ms. Deepika Sangwan booked on 26.06.2010.
2.3. Accordingly, Commercial Office Space Buyers Agreements (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agreement') were entered into between above said family members of the Informant and the Opposite Party. As per the Informant, the possession of the said five commercial office space units was to be handed over between 20.06.2011 to 29.09.2011.
2.4. It is stated in the information that the Opposite Party, which belongs to the DLF Group, is dominant in Gurgaon. In support of this contention the Informant has submitted that between 1981 and 1990, DLF got 57 of the 101 reality project licenses. Further, it is submitted that DLF office segment is nearly 32 million square ft. including completed and on-going projects, out of which 15.23 million square ft. is located in Gurgaon. Also, throughout India the land bank of DLF is amounting to 312 million square ft out of which 143 million square feet in Gurgaon alone.
2.5. The Informant has alleged that being a dominant player in commercial and residential real estate sector in Gurgaon, the DLF group has been abusing its dominant position by imposing unfair condition under buyers.
2.6. As per the Informant, some of the conditions of 'the Agreement' as stated below are unfair and abusive.
(i) Para F and R: The Opposite Party may abandon the project without offering any reason and its liability in such case would be limited to refunding the amount of money deposited with simple interest @9% per annum to the buyers:
(ii) Para 9.2: In case of major alteration/modification in the plan; the buyer has to file his/her objections/non-consent within 30 days and the objections/non-consent of the buyer would not in any way ensure a fair hearing/arbitration while, the Opposite Party on receiving such objection has the freedom to cancel 'the Agreement' unilaterally. Thus, the buyer has no recourse if the Opposite Party decides to make major alterations to the plan after signing of 'the Agreement'.
(iii) Para 8: The buyers are obliged to pay the sale price and other payments for their booked premises as per the stipulated schedule. However, there is no such obligation on the part of the Opposite Party for giving possession of the commercial units as...
To continue reading
Request your trial