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
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.
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In the wake of liberalization and privatization that was triggered in India in early nineties, a realization gathered momentum that the existing Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 was not equipped adequately enough to tackle the competition aspect of the Indian economy.
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 was passed by the Indian Parliament in order to repeal and replace The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).