AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M.M. Sharma, Ms. Deepika Rajpal and Mr. Danish Khan, Advs. for R-16. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rahul Goel, Ms. Anu Monga, Mr. Nitish Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Lalwani, Advs. for R-18. Ms. Neelambera Sandeepan and Mr. Sammith S., Advs. for R-20. Ms. Anindita Barman and Mr. Keshav Mohan, Advs. for R-22. Mr. Devashish Bharuka and Mr. Abraham C. Mathews, Advs. for R-23. Mr. Subodh Prasad Deo and Ms. Radhika Seth, Advs. for R-24. Mr. H.S. Chandhoke, Ms. Deeksha Manchanda and Mr. Arjun Nihal Singh, Advs. for R-25. ORDER: 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 3rd February, 2015 of the respondent no.1 Competition Commission of India (CCI) in case No.59/2011 holding no violation of the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 having been committed, inspite of the Director General (DG) of the CCI in its Report having recommended that there is contravention of the provisions of the Act. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. 2. After notice, when the petition was listed before this Court on 12th February, 2016, I had of my own enquired from the counsels whether not such an order was appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble against such an order. 4. Though the counsel for the petitioner on 12th February, 2016 also contended that the said question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (2010) 10 SCC 744 but to me it prima facie did not appear so. 5. I had on 12th February, 2016 itself drawn the attention of the counsels to Vinod Kumar Chowdhry Vs. Narain Devi Taneja (1980) 2 SCC 120 where the Supreme Court, though in the context of Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 held that the words "order for recovery of possession of premises" have to be construed as an order deciding the application for recovery of possession of premises because there can be no discrimination between the remedies available to the two parties to a litigation and which will render the provision unconstitutional and because of the overall scheme of the Act. Attention of the counsels was also invited to State of Maharashtra Vs. Marwanjee P. Desai (2002) 2 SCC 318 on the interpretation of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. 6. Finding that there is no specific sub-section in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated that according to him the jurisdiction for the grievance with which the petitioner had submitted the information to CCI and finding prima facie merit wherein CCI had ordered investigation lies exclusively with the CCI under the Competition Act and RERD Act is prospective in nature and the petitioner presses this petition. 10. Per contra, the senior counsel for the respondent no.18 has contended that even if this Court were to hold that this petition is maintainable, in any case on facts there is no merit in the petition. It was contended that since there are as many as 25 respondents in this petition, all represented through Advocates and wanting to address this Court on the legal question aforesaid of availability of appeal against the impugned order to COMPAT, this Court rather than spending time on hearing on the said aspect may first hear the counsels on the factual merit if any of the petition and only if convinced therewith should proceed to go into the said aspect. 11. Being agreeable with the last of the aforesaid contention of the senior counsel for the respondent no.18, the counsels for the petitioner and the senior counsel for the respondent no.18 have been h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sciously shared nor any bid being rigged through practice then even that conscious and jointly decided "practice" cannot come in the purview of Section 3(3). 15. In accordance with the order under Section 26(1) of majority of the members of CCI, as aforesaid, DG submitted a Report of certain practices being commonly carried on by the builders/developers of residential apartments by way of tacit agreement/understanding/informal co-operation and having caused implications for consumers and resultantly impacting/determining the final prices of apartments in contravention of Section 3(3)(a) of the Competition Act and controlling the provisions of services in contravention of Section 3(3)(b) of the Act. However DG did not find any contravention of the provisions of the Competition Act by the respondent no.5 CREDAI. 16. CCI, vide its order dated 15th April, 2015 ordered impleadment of 20 builders who were selected by DG as a representative sample for the purpose of investigation in the matter, i.e. the respondents 5 to 25 herein and after considering the replies, objections and submissions of the respondents and the rejoinder of the petitioner/informant thereto, has found/observed/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the respondents no.3 & 4 namely Director, Town & Country Planning, Chandigarh and HUDA and the prayer of the petitioner/informant seeking examination of their functioning did not merit consideration. (vi) That the common practices carried on by the builders/developers found by the DG to be emanating out of a tacit agreement were as follows:- "(a) Non-disclosure of calculation of total common area and its proportionate apportionment on the apartments being sold on Super Area basis and, reserving the right to increase or decrease the flat area. (b) Non expressly disclosing the applicable laws, rules and regulation etc. with respect to the projects being developed. (c) Reserving the right of further construction on any portion of the project land or terrace or building and to take advantage of any increase in FAR/FSI being available in the future. (d) Charging high interest from the apartment owners on delayed payments as against payment of significantly lower interest/inadequate compensation on account of delay on the part of the builder in implementation of the project. (e) Restricting the rights, title and interests of apartme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. (xi) CCI itself after looking into the matter in great depth found no evidence to corroborate that CREDAI has provided any platform, directly or indirectly to its members for indulging in any anti-competitive practices. (xii) CREDAI had over 9000 members; there were other players in the real estate development market who were not associated with CREDAI. (xiii) Since DG had not produced sufficient material on record wherefrom any concert amongst the players can be gleaned, it would be futile to examine the common practices to ascertain the contravention of the relevant provisions of the law. (xiv) Though CREDAI does provide platform to real estate enterprises to meet and discuss issues of common interest and find common solutions to their problems to further the commercial interest of its members who are all builders/developers but DG did not find any evidence of any role played by CREDAI in providing its platform to the members for anti-competitive practices. (xv) That a perusal of the Code of Conduct including the clauses relating to booking, agreement to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be in violation of the Act. 20. No proper reply to the said query is forthcoming save that the counsel for the petitioner draws attention to the paragraphs of the impugned order of CCI, after the paragraph where the CCI concludes that a finding of contravention of the Competition Act is not warranted. In the said paragraph, CCI has clarified that its finding should not be taken as ignoring the hardships which the consumers of real estate face at the hands of developers of real estate and comments on the absence of a regulatory mechanism for the said sector and the need for redressal thereof by the policy makers and expresses hope of the Parliament bringing a suitable legislation therefor (and which has now been brought in the form of RERD Act). 21. I am unable to agree. Merely because CCI has made such observations, would not dilute the findings of CCI of there being no evidence of any agreement between the developers of real estate or of formation of cartels resulting directly or indirectly in determining the purchase or sale price or any anti-competitive practice. 22. The counsel for the petitioner, from the report of DG has not been able to show any evidence which the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "bid rigging" means any agreement, between enterprises or persons referred to in sub-section (3) engaged in identical or similar production or trading of goods or provision of services, which has the effect of eliminating or reducing competition for bids or adversely affecting or manipulating the process for bidding" 25. In my analysis, Section 3 A. Prohibits i) an enterprise; ii) an association of enterprises; iii) a person; and, iv) an association of persons from entering into any agreement as specified in sub-section (1) thereof. B. declares such an agreement to be void. C. presumes i) such an agreement; or ii) 'practice carried on'; or iii) 'decision taken' by such associations engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services, if it a) determines price or b) limits or controls or c) divides / allocates areas or types or customers or d) results in price rigging to have an adverse effect on competition. 26. An agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while providing so, besides to 'agreement' refers also to "practice carried on" or "decision taken". The word 'decision' again connotes meeting of minds of those engaged in identical or similar trade of goods or provision of services. The question which arises is, whether the words "practice carried on" refers to a situation resulting even without meeting of minds. If that were to be so, then the second question which would arise is, whether a practice carried on by those engaged in same trade even without any meeting of minds to carry on such a practice would be covered. Section 2(m) defines a "practice" as including relating to the carrying on of any trade. However what is peculiar is that Section 3(3) which contains the words "practice carried on" is only raising a presumption as to what the same words in Section 3(1) mean. Section 3(3) by itself is neither prohibitory nor a voiding provision as Sections 3(1) and 3(2) respectively are. Thus, the words "practice carried on" have to be understood as a practice of trade in pursuance to meeting of minds. 32. Seen in this light, in the absence of any evidence of meeting of minds between any two or more developers of real estate w....