2015 (3) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... OP 1) and M/s Countrywide Promoters (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party 2/ OP 2 and jointly as the OPs) alleging contravention of the provision of Section 4 of the Act by the Opposite Parties. OP 1 is a renowned real estate company which operates through its subsidiaries including OP 2. 2. As per the information, in August 2011, Informant booked a residential unit with OP 1 in their project known as "Astaire Garden" in Sector 70A, Gurgaon, Haryana, having a plot area of 250 sq. yards, by making an initial down payment of Rs. 7.00 lakhs. Through an allotment letter dated 24.8.2011, issued by OP 1, Informant was allotted a unit having a tentative area of 1390 Sq. Ft. @ Rs. 5,530.94 per sq. ft. totalling to Rs. 76,88,086/-. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....21.9.2012 advising the Informant to clear all the arrears amounting to Rs. 23,26,364.76 within five days failing which the unit would be cancelled. Informant submitted that the unilateral decision to cancel the unit amounts to abuse of dominant position. 5. It was further stated that the Informant remitted a sum of Rs. 7,60,989/- on 6.10.2012. This payment was towards casting of the ground floor slab as per letter dated 8.3.12 and was overdue by only 45 days. As in terms of the letter dated 8.3.2012, the said payment was required to be made on or before 23.8.2012 i.e. is the final demand letter date. However, instead of acknowledging the payment of Rs. 7,60,989/-, OP 1 informed that no further payments would be accepted by him with regard ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the common practice of 10 % of the Basic Sale Price, unreasonable forfeiture policy, punitive penalties in case of delay in payment by the Informant, absence of an exit option for the informant except when OP 1 fails to give possession within the agreed time, right to make unilateral changes in the agreement by OP 1 etc. 9. Aggrieved by the abusive clauses imposed by the OPs, the informant prayed to the Commission to direct termination/modification of the Builder Buyer Agreement. 10. The Commission considered all the material on record and heard the informant at length. Since the grievance of the informant relates to abuse of dominant position by OPs, relevant market needs to be defined. During arguments the informant argued that the OP....