Case No. 102 of 2016. Case: Tirath Ram Vs Baba Associate. Competition Commision of India
|Case Number:||Case No. 102 of 2016|
|Party Name:||Tirath Ram Vs Baba Associate|
|Judges:||G.P. Mittal, J. (Member), Devender Kumar Sikri, Chairperson, S.L. Bunker, Sudhir Mital and Augustine Peter, Members|
|Issue:||Competition Act, 2002 - Sections 19(1)(a), 2 (r), 2(s), 2(t), 26(2), 4, 4(2)(a)|
|Judgement Date:||March 14, 2017|
|Court:||Competition Commision of India|
Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002
The present information has been filed by Shri Tirath Ram (hereinafter, the "Informant") under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") against Baba Associate (hereinafter, the "OP") alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
It is stated that the Informant is the owner of a property bearing No. 5A/11013/1, measuring 54 sq. yards, situated at Gali No. 8, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). As per the information, the said property was partly built-up (up to two linters/with eight pillars) and in order to complete the construction of the property, a Collaboration Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") dated 18.06.2010 was entered into between the Informant and the OP. The Agreement provided that a new building will be constructed (with stilt parking, ground, first, second and third floors) within 6 months after the execution of the agreement i.e., by 18.12.2010 with the funds of the OP. The development of the area was to be commenced in consonance with the master plan or zonal development plan and with the permission, approval or sanction of the competent authority. It is stated that the OP also promised to pay a sum of rupees of Rs. 3 lakh as amount for recovery made from the previous construction which included, cost of already built-up two linters/with eight pillars.
The terms of the Agreement, inter alia, provided that the OP shall be entitled to sell or rent the third floor without roof and parking right, after the completion of the construction from top to bottom and the Informant will have no objection to the same. It was also stated in the Agreement that the time period of construction will be six months and the OP will pay rent for three floors as per the market value to the Informant, in case of non-completion of the construction after the expiration of the stipulated time. The Agreement was made binding on both the parties.
The Informant has alleged that despite requesting a number of times, the construction was not completed and the OP delayed the construction without valid reason. Noticing no progress in the pending construction work, the Informant visited the office of the OP to ascertain the status of the construction work, collecting payment, construction plan with municipal approvals and completion certificate and know about the reason for delay in the delivery of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL