Competition Law: Where, prima facie, no information was available to prove dominance of opposite party a real estate developer in relevant market, its conduct could not be examined under provisions of section 4
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 323 (CCI)
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Deepak Kumar Jain & Manoj Kumar Jain
v.
TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
ASHOK CHAWLA, CHAIRPERSON
M.L. TAYAL, S.L. BUNKER,
SUDHIR MITAL AND AUGUSTINE PETER, MEMBER
CASE NO. 40 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position - Informant buyer filed information against OP1 a real estate developer alleging, inter alia that OP1 had abused its dominant position by imposing highly arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory conditions on plot buyers, thereby causing serious adverse effects on rights of plot buyers - Whether higher prices of project belonging to a developer do not translate into dominance - Held, yes - Whether presence of other large developers in relevant geographic market as submitted by informant himself indicated that buyers had option to switch to other developers - Held, yes - Whether since there was no information available on record and on public domain to show position of strength of OP1 which enabled it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in relevant market, prima facie, OP1 did not appear to be in dominant position in relevant market - Held, yes - Whether in absence of dominance of OP1 in relevant market, its conduct could not be examined under provisions of section 4 - Held, yes [Paras 10, 11 & 12]
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 323 (CCI)
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Deepak Kumar Jain & Manoj Kumar Jain
v.
TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
ASHOK CHAWLA, CHAIRPERSON
M.L. TAYAL, S.L. BUNKER,
SUDHIR MITAL AND AUGUSTINE PETER, MEMBER
CASE NO. 40 OF 2014
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position - Informant buyer filed information against OP1 a real estate developer alleging, inter alia that OP1 had abused its dominant position by imposing highly arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory conditions on plot buyers, thereby causing serious adverse effects on rights of plot buyers - Whether higher prices of project belonging to a developer do not translate into dominance - Held, yes - Whether presence of other large developers in relevant geographic market as submitted by informant himself indicated that buyers had option to switch to other developers - Held, yes - Whether since there was no information available on record and on public domain to show position of strength of OP1 which enabled it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in relevant market, prima facie, OP1 did not appear to be in dominant position in relevant market - Held, yes - Whether in absence of dominance of OP1 in relevant market, its conduct could not be examined under provisions of section 4 - Held, yes [Paras 10, 11 & 12]
No comments:
Post a Comment