TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Consumer Dispute Case Closed; Not Anti-Competitive, Says Competition Commission of India.</h1> <h3>P. Sesharatnam, Pattabiraman, C. Vijayalakshmi And Sridhara Murthy Cheruvu Versus Sudershan Reddy, Sri. Gilla Gouraiah And Mekala Srinivas</h3> The Competition Commission of India concluded that the allegations against the Opposite Parties concerning the Development Agreement did not contravene ... Partition of property - private injury - dishonor of the cheques issued by the OPs and cancellation of development agreement - contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 of the Act or not? - Held that:- The Commission notes that though the Informant has alleged contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 of the Act, yet looking at the nature of the allegations, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act have no application to the present case as the Informants and the OPs are neither operating at the same level in the market, i.e Section 3(3) of the Act, nor are they part of the same production/ supply chain, i.e. under Section 3(4) of the Act. The facts disclosed in the instant case are purely a consumer/ contractual dispute, beyond the purview of the Act. The allegation of non-performance of the conditions of the Development Agreement, does not raise any competition concern as there is no Appreciable Adverse Effect on competition from the same. Further, dishonor of the cheques issued by the OPs and cancellation of development agreement, as alleged in the instant case, are not the mandate of the Commission - the facts disclosed in the instant case are purely a consumer/ contractual dispute, beyond the purview of the Act. The allegation of non-performance of the conditions of the Development Agreement, does not raise any competition concern as there is no Appreciable Adverse Effect on competition from the same. The Commission is of the opinion that no case of contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 of the Act is made out against the OPs - application disposed off. Issues:Alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney for construction of a residential complex.Analysis:1. Nature of Allegations: The Informants filed a complaint alleging contravention of Section 3 of the Act by the Opposite Parties (OPs) regarding a Development Agreement for constructing a residential complex.2. Background: The Informants detailed the ownership and transfer of land, construction of a house, and subsequent agreement with the OPs for developing a new residential complex.3. Development Agreement: The Informants, OPs, and Mr. Vasudevarao entered into a Development Agreement for the construction, with building permission obtained for the project.4. Allegations of Misconduct: The Informants accused the OPs of using substandard materials, improper construction practices, and delaying the project, leading to concerns about the quality and progress of the construction.5. Financial Disputes: Disputes arose regarding payments, with allegations of dishonored cheques, non-payment of agreed amounts, and rental payment issues between the parties.6. Legal Notices and Court Proceedings: The Informants issued legal notices to the OPs, who responded by filing a suit seeking relief, but no injunction was granted in favor of the OPs.7. Request for Relief: The Informants sought the nullification of the Development Agreement and requested payment of agreed amounts, value of flats, goodwill, and rent as per the initial agreements.8. Commission's Findings: The Competition Commission of India analyzed the case and concluded that the allegations did not fall under Section 3 of the Act, as it was a consumer/contractual dispute without adverse competition effects.9. Jurisdictional Limitations: The Commission clarified that the dispute was a private injury issue outside its mandate, suggesting the parties seek redressal through appropriate legal channels.10. Closure of the Case: Based on the lack of competition concerns and jurisdictional limitations, the Commission ordered the closure of the case under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002.11. Communication of Decision: The Secretary was directed to inform the Informants about the closure of the case and the reasons behind the decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
