Real estate developers' similar practices don't violate Competition Act without proven common intention or meeting of minds

HC dismissed petition challenging CCI order regarding alleged Competition Act violations. Court held that agreements under Section 3(1) require meeting of minds or common intention, not merely similar conduct by parties. While Section 2(b) defines agreement broadly to include informal arrangements, mere identical practices without proven common intention don't constitute violations. CCI correctly found no meeting of minds among real estate developers despite similar practices, and no appreciable adverse effect on competition. Formation of trade association alone doesn't violate Section 3 without proven anti-competitive effects.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Appealability of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) order to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).
3. Jurisdiction of CCI versus Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
4. Alleged contravention of the Competition Act, 2002 by real estate developers.
5. Evaluation of evidence and findings by CCI regarding anti-competitive practices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition under Article 226:

The petition challenged the CCI's order under Article 226, arguing it was maintainable since no appeal to COMPAT was provided for in cases where CCI disagrees with the Director General's (DG) report. The court examined the applicability of precedent cases and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Competition Act. It was noted that the absence of a specific provision for appeal in such scenarios could render the petition maintainable.

2. Appealability of the CCI Order to COMPAT:

The court considered whether the CCI's order, which differed from the DG's findings, was appealable to COMPAT. Reference was made to Section 53A(1)(a) of the Competition Act, which allows appeals against certain CCI orders. The court discussed the implications of the absence of a specific sub-section in Section 26 for cases where CCI disagrees with the DG's report. The court expressed a prima facie view that an appeal might lie, but ultimately focused on the merits of the petition instead of resolving this legal question.

3. Jurisdiction of CCI versus RERA:

The court deliberated on whether the petitioner's grievance should be addressed by CCI or under the newly enacted RERA. The petitioner contended that the jurisdiction lies with CCI, as the RERA is prospective. The court did not make a conclusive determination on this issue, as it found no merit in the petition itself.

4. Alleged Contravention of the Competition Act by Real Estate Developers:

The petitioner alleged anti-competitive agreements among real estate developers, citing common practices in flat buyers' agreements. The DG's report suggested contravention of Sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Competition Act. However, CCI found no sufficient evidence of any agreement or understanding among developers to substantiate these claims. The court agreed with CCI's reasoning, finding no evidence of a meeting of minds or common intention among developers to engage in anti-competitive practices.

5. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings by CCI:

The court reviewed the CCI's analysis and found no error in its conclusion that there was no contravention of the Competition Act. CCI had assessed the common practices in the real estate industry and determined they were inherent to the business rather than indicative of anti-competitive conduct. The court emphasized the lack of evidence showing any concerted action or agreement among developers to justify a finding of contravention under Section 3 of the Act.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the allegations of anti-competitive practices and no error in the CCI's order. The court did not address the maintainability of an appeal or the jurisdictional issue concerning RERA, as these were rendered moot by the dismissal of the petition on factual grounds.

---