Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Commission Indian Laws - 2013 (2) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 534 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIASection 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 - abuse of dominant position - Informant claimed to be a businessman who booked a commercial office space with DLF [opposite party] under Commercial Office Space Buyer's Agreement including completion and possession of the complex within 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement but no sign of construction as against promises made by opposite party found when informant visited the site - Informant charged OP with alleging contravention of section 4 abusing its dominant position by making him sign one-sided agreement and delaying project - Held that:- The relevant market proposed by the informant, namely 'real estate developer in Delhi and Gurgaon', seems incorrect. Though the OP may have a PAN India presence but the geographic conditions prevailing in different parts of the country require determination of relevant geographic market in context of that area.Gurgaon and Delhi are different relevant geographic markets for the purposes of case at hand. Gurgaon developed in last few years in a major way and various big projects were started by the OP Group in that area. However, in Delhi, opposite party is just one of the real estate developers. here were many other real estate developers in Delhi who offered similar commercial/office space. The informant in the present case was desirous of booking an office space. Therefore, the relevant market in the present case will be market for 'development of commercial/office space in the region of Delhi'. Section 19(4) of the Act states that the Commission needs to consider various factors stated under that section while assessing whether an enterprise enjoys a dominant position or not and as per the information available in public domain, it is clear that the OP was not the only real estate developer offering commercial office space in Delhi. There are other real estate developers as well, e.g., Ansal API, Unitech, BPTP, Omaxe, Parsavnath etc. Presence of other real estate developers offering commercial office space also indicates that the informant was not dependent upon the opposite party for provisioning of an office space. None of the factors stated under section 19(4) of the Act seem to support informant's plea of dominance of opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party does not appear to be dominant in the relevant market of 'development of commercial/office space in the region of Delhi Thus plea regarding abuse of dominance in instant case rejected a as the OP was not dominant in the relevant market determined by the Commission - there does not exist a prima facie case under section 4 to order DG investigation as allegations related to unfair trade practices, deficiency in services etc. may be pleaded at other appropriate forums, if the informant so desires, the same being not within the ambit and jurisdiction of the Commission - Commission deems it fit to close the proceedings in the instant case under section 26(2).
|