2020 (5) TMI 753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... BANSI LAL BHAT, J. Appellants (hereinafter referred to as "Informants") filed Information with the Competition Commission of India ("Commission" for short) against 'M/s. Goel Enclave' (Respondent No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 hereinafter referred to as "OP-1") and eight others collectively alleging contravention of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2002"). The Commission after consideration of the allegations in the Information was of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case. It accordingly closed the matter in terms of the impugned order dated 5th May, 2017 passed under Section 26(2) of the Act, 2002. Aggrieved thereof, the Informants have preferred the instant appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had been used and the area earmarked for common facilities for the residents was utilised illegally for raising eight more blocks, thereby shrinking the space for common facilities of residents. Thus, it was alleged, the gullible allottees were fleeced and duped of their hard earned earnings. The Commission, on consideration of the Information, found no substance in the allegations of abusive conduct of Ops-1 to 4 while other OPs, in its opinion, were an unnecessary surplusage in the Information having no role at all. The Commission was of the opinion that the relevant product in question was a residential flat in the geographic area of Lucknow which was the relevant geographic market. Thus, it found that the relevant market in the case was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he space reserved for common facilities at the cost of comfort of the allottees besides extracting more money in the form of additional charges for maintenance and parking space beyond the stipulations in the Agreement but that would be a breach of the contractual obligation entitling the allottees to claim compensation. However, no competition concern can be raised on this core in as much as OP-1 as developer was only one of the players in the field having lesser resources and smaller volume as compared to other Real Estate Developers noticed herein above in this order. On consideration of the material on record and the reasons assigned by the Commission, we have no doubt in our mind that OPs 1 to 4 were not holding dominant position in th....