TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the application is being filed to bring to the notice of the Commission the contravention of the Commission‟s order dated 31.01.2012 wherein the Commission had passed a „cease and desist‟ order under section 27 of the Act which was stated to be later confirmed and upheld by the Competition Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal‟) vide its order dated 09.11.2011 passed in Appeal No. 20 of 2011 and Appeal No. 22 of 2011. It is further stated that the said order was made applicable to the appeal filed by the opposite party No. 1/ non-applicant herein in Appeal No. 19 of 2012 by order dated 12.04.2012 of the Tribunal. 4. The applicant has stated that the „cease and desist‟ order passed by the Commission and confirmed by the Tribunal was binding on the opposite party No. 1 and as such it was legally bound not to impose any unfair conditions in its agreement under challenge upon the buyers and the members of the informant association. 5. The specific abuse sought to be brought to the notice of the Commission is being inflicted in the form of demand letters being issued to the members of the applicant association wherein the opposite party No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngh by the opposite party No. 1 which is evident from the letter dated 28.11.2012 issued by the opposite party No. 1 to Shri Brij Raj Singh. 11. The opposite party No. 1 filed replies to the applications of the original informants as well as Shri Brij Raj Singh. 12. So far as the reply filed by the opposite party No. 1 to the application of Shri Brij Raj Singh is concerned, the opposite party No. 1 has contended that after final disposal of the case, no application can be filed by the applicant (Shri Brij Raj Singh) for intervention as the Commission has become functus officio. It was contended that the applicant Shri Brij Raj Singh was not a party to Case No. 67 of 2010 and as such he has no locus standi to move any application including an application under section 42 of the Act. 13. In reply to the application of the original applicants, it was pointed out by the opposite party No. 1 that the order dated 31.01.2012 which is alleged to be contravened in the instant proceedings was passed under section 27 of the Act in Case No. 67 of 2010 („the Magnolias case‟) was on similar lines as orders passed in Case No. 19 of 2010 („the Belaire‟ case) and Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pectively. It has been contended that the Tribunal after hearing the parties passed a detailed order dated 12.02.2013 which comprehensively dealt with the rights of the parties during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal vis-a-vis the demand letters issued by the opposite party No. 1 to the allottees and directed that the rights of the parties would be finally determined upon the disposal of the appeals which are stated to be heard on a day-to-day basis. For sake of convenience, relevant extract from the aforesaid order are noted below: ...However, Shri Salve expresses his apprehensions about the aforesaid three orders under Section 42 of the Act by CCI and says that they will be under the constant hanging sword of those orders. We feel that this is also not necessary because the CCI has made it very clear that these orders have been passed in pursuance of the order dated 03.01.2013, yet the final execution of those orders shall be subject to the final outcome of the main appeal pending before us against the order dated 12.08.2011. Therefore, we need not pass any specific orders regarding the interim relief. It is obvio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s incorrect and the opposite party No. 1 sought its dismissal. 18. The Commission has very carefully perused the various replies and submissions made by the parties. 19. As noted by the Commission in its order dated 09.05.2013 in the present proceedings whether or not the opposite party No. 1 has contravened the order of the Commission vis-a-vis, the applicant herein, is not the subject matter of the appeals pending before the Tribunal. The subject matter of appeals before the Tribunal is a final order passed by the Commission under section 27 of the Act. The Tribunal while granting interim relief to the opposite party No. 1 had stayed recovery of penalty from the opposite party No. 1. The Tribunal had, however, not stayed the cease and desist order. Thus, the opposite party No. 1 was bound to act in accordance with the order of the Commission except the payment of the penalty imposed by the Commission. 20. In these circumstances, an inquiry was conducted by the Commission into the alleged violation of order of the Commission vide the said order dated 09.05.2013 and accordingly the opposite party was directed to furnish the information as specified in the said order to ena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fields. It was suggested that the first direction- "to cease and desist from formulating and imposing such unfair conditions in its agreements with buyers in Gurgaon" does not relate to the present agreement in which the Term and Conditions had already been formulated and imposed. The second direction- "to suitably modify unfair conditions imposed on its buyers as referred to above...... "required DLF to suitably modify the conditions of the „present‟ Apartment Buyers Agreement, which were held to be unfair. It was suggested that the two directions operate in different fields and it was sought to be argued that only the second direction relates to the „present‟ Apartment Buyers Agreement. 25. The Commission has very carefully perused the material available on record besides examining the submissions made by the counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 26. The main grievance of the applicants in the present proceedings relate to the demand letters issued to the members of the informant No. 1 association by the opposite party No. 1 under the garb of "Super Area‟. 27. It may be observed that the Commission inter alia found the following term of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o transpired that the opposite party No. 1 had given tentative possession to the flat owner before obtaining completion certificate, so that the flat owner may do interiors and the flat owner did flooring work and other work on this area of the roof falling in front of his flat. At that time the flat owner was not informed by the opposite party No. 1 that this part of the roof which fell before his flat would be considered as a balcony and would form part of the additional super area. 30. In terms of the provisions of section 42(1) of the Act, the Commission may cause an inquiry to be made into compliance of its orders or directions made in exercise of its powers under the Act. Furthermore, by virtue of the provisions of section 42(2) of the Act, if any person, without reasonable clause, fails to comply with the orders or directions of the Commission issued under sections 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 42A and 43A of the Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh for each day during which such non-compliance occurs, subject to a maximum of rupees ten crore, as the Commission may determine. 31. On a careful perusal of the material on record and hearing the ....