9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant: Mr. K.K Sharma, Mr. Bunmeet Singh, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Mr. S.P. Roy and Mr. Sanchit, Advocates. For the Respondent : None ORDER The Appellant- Ms. Usha Roy ('Informant') filed present information under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 against ANS Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "OP-1") and Shalimar Corp. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "OP-2") allegi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. However, in view of the pleadings made in the petition as noticed by the Commission and as on the record we are of the view that the second information alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 against the common opposite parties on the same state of facts is not maintainable merely on the ground that certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmant is liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. in case of delay in payment of instalment, there is no such liability faced upon OP-1 to pay any interest in case of delay on its part. It was contended that the buyer does not have any bargaining power or countervailing buying power to negotiate the terms of the Agreement. 4. It was also submitted that the Agreement entered into in the year 2012 was ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share, depending upon the time of grant of licenses. The Informant has also submitted data of integrated townships in Lucknow, as follows: S. No. Name of the Project Builder Area Hospital facility Status 1 Shalimar OneWorld Shalimar Group 220 acres Yes Ongoing 2 Omaxe City Omaxe 140 acres No Completed 3 Eldeco City Eldeco Group 133 acres No Completed 4 Emaar MGF Greens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commission that could differentiate from the previous case, the Commission rightly held that the earlier order dated 31st August passed in Case No. 48 of 2016 for same sets of allegation is not maintainable against the same opposite parties and rightly closed the application under Section 26(2) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
