Section 36A of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Unfair trade practic

Competition Law : Non-delivery of possession of plot allotted to complainant and demand of additional price amounts to unfair trade practice; complainant entitled to refund of excess amount and interest from date of deposit till date of actual refund
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 490 (CAT - New Delhi)
COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Praveen Kumar Mendiratta
v.
Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority
JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI, CHAIRMAN
UTPE NO.26 OF 2007
CA NO. 81 OF 2007
DECEMBER  11, 2014
Section 36A of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Unfair trade practice - Definition of - In response to an advertisement issued by respondent-builders, complainant had applied for a residential plot - After about four months, a plot was allotted to complainant but possession thereof was not given to him on pretext of pending litigation - While complainant was waiting for delivery of possession, respondent demanded additional payment in lieu of enhanced compensation allegedly paid to land owners - Whether respondents were guilty of unfair trade practice inasmuch as they had made false promise about availability of vacant plots and not only they failed to give possession of plots allotted to complainant, but also demanded additional price from him despite the fact that no award had been passed in respect of acquired land - Held, yes - Whether thus complainant was entitled to refund of excess amount and interest from date of deposit till date of actual refund - Held, yes[Paras 37 & 38] 

Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position

Competition Act : Presence of other builders offering residential flats in relevant market rules out dominance of opposite party
■■■
[2014] 52 taxmann.com 153 (CCI)
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Anil K Jain
v.
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
M.L. TAYAL, S.L. BUNKER, SUDHIR MITAL,
AUGUSTINE PETER AND U.C. NAHTA, MEMBER
CASE NO. 48 OF 2014
OCTOBER  1, 2014
Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - Prohibition of abuse of dominant position - Whether where informants, allottees of residential plot developed by Opposite Party No. 1, contended that it devised a scheme for permitting 'transfers' of allotments of non-existent plots on which they collected 'transfer charges' and 'stamp duty' as well, in view of fact that there were other developers also in relevant market, opposite party could not be said to be in a dominant position and, thus, question of abuse of dominant position by it within meaning of provisions of section 4 did not arise - Held, yes

Section 2(h), read with section 4, of the Competition Act, 2002 - Enterpris

Competition Act : Registrar of co-operative society while discharging its regulatory and statutory mandate cannot be said to fall within purview of terms enterprise as defined in section 2(h)
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 272 (CCI)
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Malwa Industrial & Marketing Ferti-chem Co-operative Society Ltd. (MIFCO)
v.
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab
ASHOK CHAWLA, CHAIRPERSON
S.L. BUNKER, SUDHIR MITAL,
AUGUSTINE PETER AND U.C. NAHTA, MEMBER
CASE NO. 31 OF 2014
NOVEMBER  18, 2014
Section 2(h), read with section 4, of the Competition Act, 2002 - Enterprise - Definition of - Whether regulatory functions are not per se amenable to jurisdiction of Commission - Held, yes - Whether Registrar of co-operative society while discharging its regulatory and statutory mandate cannot be said to fall within purview of terms enterprise as defined in section 2(h) - Held, yes [Paras 16, 17, 18 & 19]

Dominance of opposite party a real estate developer in relevant market, its conduct could not be examined under provisions of section 4

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]

THE COMPETITION ACT , 2002