COMPAT by its order dated August 9, 2016 has upheld order of CCI whereby it declined to order an investigation into the allegations of abuse of dominance by DLF Universal Limited and others. The information was filed in CCI by Mrs Ravinder Kaur Sethi who made an application for allotment of a commercial space 'Prime Towers', Okhla being constructed by DLF Universal Limited and paid part of the price. Between March, 2013 and August, 2014, she was said to have paid various instalments of the price albeit with delay. Respondent issued notices and reminders about delay in the payment of instalments and also levied penalty. Respondent thereafter issued final notice indicating the quantum of the outstanding dues and subsequently cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 10.05.2014 and forfeited part of the amount already paid by her. After cancellation of the allotment, the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Fortune Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd. whereby she agreed to lease-out the disputed property to the lessee. After executing the lease deed, the appellant approached Respondent for grant of 'No Objection' for doing business in the space allotted to her and the latter granted the same. She then sent notice to the respondent for handing over possession of the shop by asserting full payment of outstanding dues including penalty but the possession was still not handed over. Thereafter, she filed information with CCI as to Respondent being in a dominant position in the relevant market had abused that position for cancellation of allotment of the shop on the pretext of non-payment of the installment of price etc.

The CCI held that the respondent was not holding a dominant position and referred to the order passed in Case No. 50/2012 titled - Kaushal K. Rana Vs. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd., wherein it was held that Respondent was not in a dominant position in the relevant market and closed the matter by invoking Section 26(2) of the Act.

COMPAT dismissing the appeal filed held that for establishing that Respondent was in a dominant position, the onus lay upon the appellant to produce data/ statistics. Appellant's failure to produce any material before the Commission to demonstrate that Respondent had the largest share in the relevant market, disentitles the appellant from seeking a declaration that the Commission committed an error by refusing to determine the issue of dominant position of Respondent and abuse thereof.

© 2016, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.