Competition Act : Imposition of unfair and one-sided terms and conditions by OP, a dominant player in relevant market for development and sale of residential plot, in agreement was abusive in terms of provisions of section 4
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 237 (CCI)
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Ms. Aanchal Khetarpal
v.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
ASHOK CHAWLA, CHAIRPERSON
M.L. TAYAL, S.L. BUNKER, SUDHIR MITAL AND AUGUSTINE PETER, MEMBER
CASE NO. 56 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Section 4, read with section 3, of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position - Informant had booked a plot in one of OP's project and accordingly entered into agreement - Informant stated that OP failed to hand over possession of plot within stipulated time and on raising concerns for delay in giving possession, allotment of said plot was cancelled by OP - Further in spite of numerous communications, OP refunded certain portion of consideration after a period of 30 months from date of issue of cancellation letter and thus abused its dominant position by enforcing one-sided terms and conditions in agreement - Whether even though there were various other developers operating in relevant market, land bank available with OP was much higher than that with any other developer and thus OP appeared to be in a dominant position - Held, yes - Whether after examination of agreement, some of clauses, prima facie, appeared to be unfair, one-sided and loaded in favour of OP - Held, yes - Whether therefore, Director general was directed to cause investigation in said matter - Held, yes [Paras 15,16 and 19]
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 237 (CCI)
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Ms. Aanchal Khetarpal
v.
Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
ASHOK CHAWLA, CHAIRPERSON
M.L. TAYAL, S.L. BUNKER, SUDHIR MITAL AND AUGUSTINE PETER, MEMBER
CASE NO. 56 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Section 4, read with section 3, of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position - Informant had booked a plot in one of OP's project and accordingly entered into agreement - Informant stated that OP failed to hand over possession of plot within stipulated time and on raising concerns for delay in giving possession, allotment of said plot was cancelled by OP - Further in spite of numerous communications, OP refunded certain portion of consideration after a period of 30 months from date of issue of cancellation letter and thus abused its dominant position by enforcing one-sided terms and conditions in agreement - Whether even though there were various other developers operating in relevant market, land bank available with OP was much higher than that with any other developer and thus OP appeared to be in a dominant position - Held, yes - Whether after examination of agreement, some of clauses, prima facie, appeared to be unfair, one-sided and loaded in favour of OP - Held, yes - Whether therefore, Director general was directed to cause investigation in said matter - Held, yes [Paras 15,16 and 19]
No comments:
Post a Comment