India: CCI Fines Jai Prakash Associates For Abusing Its Dominant Position In The Market For Sale Of Independent Villas In Integrated Townships In The Territory Of Noida And Greater Noida

Last Updated: 7 November 2019

Article by MM Sharma, Head Competition Law & Policy Practice, Vaish Associates, Advocates, New Delhi, India

Competition Commission of India ("CCI/Commission"), by way of order dated 09.08.2019, has imposed a penalty of INR 13.82 Crores on Jai Prakash Associates ("JPA") for abusing its dominant position by including various one sided and unfair clauses in its Provision Allotment Letter ("PAL").

Background and allegations

JPA is a company engaged in the business of real estate development and has developed real estate projects in Sectors 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, and 151 under the names of Wish Town, Jaypee Greens, in Noida and Greater Noida .

Mr. Naveen Kataria ('informant') had booked a villa on 19.01.2011 measuring 655 sq. yds. in the said project having a super area of 5700 sq. ft. along with a basement measuring 500 sq. ft. for a consideration of INR 4,05,00,000/-. The Informant had paid 95% of the total consideration i.e., INR 3, 84, 75,000/- to JPA before the specified timeline.

It was alleged that in the PAL dated 02.03.2011, JPA had failed to mention about the provisions such as complimentary golf membership, total area of the plot, and additional basement area of 500 sq. ft. It was further alleged that it was informed by JPA that additional construction beyond the agreed area would be charged @ INR 7105/- per sq. ft. The Informant, vide letter dated 25.04.2011, pointed out those deficiencies to JPA and contested that the cost of additional construction could not be more than INR 1000/- per sq. ft. After repeated reminders, JPA informed the Informant that additional construction would be charged @ INR. 5000/- per sq. ft.

Looking for a recourse, the Informant vide e-mail dated 20.5.2011 requested JPA to not consider 500 sq. ft. of basement area, as a part of the agreed super area and not to charge INR. 5000/- per sq. ft. for any additional construction beyond the agreed area, as the cost of constructing the shell and core was barely INR 1000/- per sq. ft. To this, JPA vide e-mail dated 21.05.2011, replied that 'with your captioned unit of standard villa of 655 sq. yds. comes along with a basement of 500 sq. ft. The Provisional Letter of Allotment is a standardized text and does not separately mention the basement area which is in-built in the transaction as per the sale brochure'. However, JPA ignored the issue pertaining to charging @ INR 5000/- per sq. ft. for the additional construction.

It was also alleged that the due date for completion and handing over the possession of the plot and construction was 18 months from the date of signing of the plan with ninety days of grace period, however the said period expired on 22.02.2013 and the Informant received the letter for possession on 09.11.2013 i.e., after a delay of eight months and seventeen days.

As per the informant, JPA levied an extra charge of INR 25,00,000/- along with applicable service tax for 500 sq. ft. representing the area of basement @ INR 5000/- per sq. ft. It was also alleged that JPA had charged an extra sum of INR 4, 22,200/- (INR 4000/- per sq. ft. for 105.55 sq. ft.), representing the cost of construction of additional area.

The informant had also complained about the terms and conditions in the PAL being unfair, one sided and loaded in favor of JPA.

On being prima facie convinced that such conduct by JPA is in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, CCI directed the Director General ("DG") to investigate the matter.

DG Investigation

In his investigation report dated 01.08.2016 , DG defined the relevant market as the 'market for provision of services of development and sale of residential properties (including flats, villas and plots) in integrated township in Noida and Greater Noida and found JPA to be dominant in the said relevant market, however when the CCI considered the investigation report, it noted that the DG had not considered the subject matter of the case i.e., villa bought by the Informant separately. The report had included flats, plots, and villas in the same category and failed to take into account the differences in the characteristics between flats and villas thereby, erring in defining the relevant market. The Commission was of opinion that the provision of the services of development and sale of residential villas was a distinct product compared to the services of development and sale of residential units/ apartments in terms of end use. CCI opined that villas are large luxurious houses, having own garden, swimming pool, fountain etc. are more private and elegant; allow buyers to decide on their own discretion about the floor plan, number of floors, structure, and other specifics of dwelling units subject to applicable regulations. Thus, from the consumer's perspective, a residential villa or an apartment or a plot are not substitutable with one another. Hence, villas and other residential units such as apartments and plots could not be considered in the same category as has been done by the DG. Therefore, the Commission deemed it appropriate that the matter be further investigated and be assessed on the relevant market for provision of services of development and sale of residential villas in integrated townships in Noida and Greater Noida. The matter was directed to re investigate and submit a supplementary report .

Accordingly, a supplementary investigation report dated 31.03.2017 was submitted by the DG in which he assessed the issue as to whether residential properties such as multi-storey apartments, villas, estate homes and town homes situated in an integrated township were interchangeable and substitutable with each other. It was noted by the DG that the buyers of multi-storey apartments have undivided share in the common plot and the prices of those multi-storey apartments were also on the lower side as compared to villas. Other factors such as immediate neighborhood, community living, separate security arrangement etc. are not available to the occupants of independent units such as villa/ town homes/estate homes and the independent houses built on the relevant plots. The DG also observed that a multi-storey apartment in an integrated township is unique and different from other types of residential properties in an integrated township. On the other hand, residential units such as villas/town homes/estate homes in an integrated township are not interchangeable and substitutable with multi-storey apartments due to the differences in price, intended use and characteristics such as exclusivity/privacy /flexibility of internal layout, etc. DG was also of the view that the independent residential units such as villas, estate homes, town houses in one integrated township could only be substituted with villas, estate homes, and town houses in another integrated township.

Accordingly, the DG concluded that the relevant product market is 'the market for the provision of development and sale of independent residential units such as villas, estate homes, town homes and row-houses in integrated townships', while the relevant geographic market is Noida and Greater Noida. As regards dominance, DG concluded that JPA was dominant in the said relevant product market in Noida and Greater Noida having 100% market share and had abused its dominant position due to the unfair and one-sided clauses in the PAL.

CCI Analysis

Preliminary issues

Before dwelling into the merits of the case, the CCI dealt with a number of preliminary issues as under:

(a) The Informant no longer wished to pursue the instant case, since all the pending disputes with the JPA had been settled, and also stated that the disputes were in the nature of contractual/ consumer disputes and , therefore, the Informant requested to recall the order passed under Section 26(1) of the Act.

Held: CCI observed that the scheme of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder do not provide for withdrawal of the information filed under Section 19 of the Act. CCI held that Commission is a market regulator established to prevent practices having an adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interests of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets, in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and thus, does not decide lis between parties.

(b) JPA contended that the matter should have been dealt with under RERA and claims/remedy be made under the Contract Act.

Held: CCI stated that availability of remedies before other fora do not oust the jurisdiction of the Commission as it is the duty of the Commission to eliminate practices having adverse effect on competition, promote and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers and ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants, in market and the parties are at liberty to approach RERA or any other authority as per law but matters of competition concerns are to be dealt under the Act only.

(c) JPA contended that the Commission has no jurisdiction as the definition of 'goods' as provided under the Act refers to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, expressly excludes immovable property from its ambit. Therefore, the sale of residential unit in the instant case would not amount to sale of goods. It was further argued that the transaction pertained strictly to sale of the residential unit by the OP and did not in any manner contemplate the provision of services as between the OP and the prospective allottees.

Held: CCI held that a plain reading of Section 2(u) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the activity undertaken by JPA i.e. construction of residential units intended for sale to the potential consumers after developing the land, will fall under the definition of 'service' under the Act as the term 'service' has been defined as service of any description and includes provision of services in connection with business of any industrial or commercial matters such as real estate.

(d) JPA contended that the Commission's order directing the DG for further investigation was erroneous as a combined reading of Section 26(7) of the Act and Section 26(5) provides that 'further investigation' can be directed by the Commission only in cases where the investigation report of the DG recommended no contravention of the provisions of the Act, which is not the case here.

Held: CCI held that it had directed the DG to conduct further investigation under Regulation 20(6) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, and therefore, the aforesaid contention did not hold good.

(e) JPA further contended that a previous order of the Commission under Section 26(6) in Case Nos. 72 of 2011; 16, 34 & 53 of 2012; and 45 of 2013, wherein it was also the Opposite Party, would operate as a bar for the present case under the doctrine of res judicata.

Held: To this, the Commission observed that JPA has failed to take into account the earlier cases which were related to residential apartments whereas the instant case relates to independent residential units such as villas, estate homes, town homes and row-houses which are two distinct relevant markets and cannot be considered and clubbed together.

Relevant Market

The Commission agreed with the observation of the DG that there are distinguishable features of an independent residential unit which are as under: (i) these are composite residential units built on a separate plot of land and, therefore, provide privacy and exclusivity to the occupants. The occupant does not have to share its common area such as entrance, corridors, etc. with other occupants in the same integrated townships; (ii) these units are large, elegant and luxurious and may have their own gardens, fountain, etc; (iii) the builder/ developer delivers a ready built unit to the consumer as per the agreed internal lay-out plan and specifications of the unit; and (iv) the price of the independent units is higher as compared to multi-storey apartments in an integrated township. Accordingly, the Commission was of the view that there is no commonality or convergence between multi-storey apartments and plots or independent residential units situated in the integrated township. The Commission noted that there is no commonality or convergence between multi-storey apartments and plots or independent residential units situated in the integrated township, and, residential units such as villas, estate homes, town homes, row-houses in an integrated township can only be substituted with similar residential units that provide almost equal benefits and advantages, in another integrated township only. Therefore, the relevant product market was decided as the 'market for the provision of services for development and sale of independent residential units such as villas, estate homes, town homes and row-houses in integrated townships in Noida and Greater Noida'.

Dominant Position

CCI observed that JPA has the largest market share in terms of number of units launched/ sold in the relevant market of independent residential units, such as, villas, estate homes, town homes and row-house in integrated township in Noida and Greater Noida during the relevant period of FY 2009-10 to 2011-12. JPA had launched 180 independent residential units during the FY 2010-11 whereas none of its competitors had launched any independent residential units during the relevant period in their integrated townships in Noida and Greater Noida. CCI also observed that during the relevant period the total sale value in respect of independent residential units sold by the OP in its integrated township project in Noida/ Greater Noida was INR 828.95 crore. On the other hand, none of its competitors in the relevant market namely Unitech and Omaxe had not sold any independent residential unit during the aforesaid period in their integrated townships in Noida/ Greater Noida. Apart from these factors, CCI noted that JPA's financial resources, land resources available at its disposal or through its group companies, vertical integration also revealed that it was enjoying a dominant position during the relevant period.

Abuse of Dominant position

CCI assessed the following clause in the PAL and found them to be abusive in nature:

(a) Clause 2.4: Additional constructions and amending/ altering the layout plans

The Commission observed that this clause had the effect of taking away the rights of allottees at all the stages i.e., before or after taking possession, to prevent JPA from amending/ altering the plans, putting-up additional constructions and constructing other buildings or other structures in the area adjoining the said premises. The Commission agreed with the DG that it cannot be denied that an allottee books a property keeping in mind its location, open space surrounding the property, availability of sunlight/ air/ greenery etc and therefore putting such a clause in the PAL which gives unilateral powers to the builder to effect such changes without even consulting, much less seeking concurrence of, the allottees, is unfair and one-sided, in violation of the provision of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

(b) Clause 5.6: Charging interest on delayed payments

The Commission noted that the interest rate imposed on the allottee under clause 5.6 of the PAL was one-sided and unfair since the interest rate chargeable from the allottee in case of delay in making payments was much more than interest payable by JPA for delay on account of handing over of possession to the allottee. JPA had contended that it had reduced the interest rate payable by allottee to 12% p.a. in case of default and thus is in line with the industry practice. However, CCI held that it cannot be considered as a fair imposition of the clause because not only does a substantial difference exist between the penalty levied on the allottees and penalty paid by JPA in case of default but the clause is still in favor of JPA.

(c) Clause 6.9: Right to raise finance from any bank/ financial institution/ body corporate

Commission noted that this clause confers JPA the right and sole discretion to create an equitable mortgage or charge or hypothecation on the leased land and construction thereon in process or on the completed construction in favor of one or more lending institutions even after a substantial amount has been paid by the allottees. In this regard, it is observed that as the allottees pay a substantial amount after booking units in the project, JPA ought to inform the allottees and also seek their views before such charge is created by it. In the absence of such mechanism, the Commission was of the view that such clause, which gives unilateral power of creating a charge or interest on the property without any say of the allottee, is unfair and arbitrary.

(d) Clause 7: Obligations of the Company

The Commission was of the opinion that by no stretch of imagination non-availability or scarcity of steel and/or cement and/or other building materials and/or water supply and/or electric power and/or slow down can be given the colour of force-majeure. The Commission noted that clause 7.2 ensured that JPA does not pay any compensation/ damage to the allottees in case of the above-mentioned events even when they are actually not within the meaning of the term 'force majeure'. JPA had provided for waiving off of its liability of paying compensation on delayed delivery of possession by including such factors in the clause.

(e) Clause 8.1: Miscellaneous obligations/ holding charges

The Commission observed that the above clause provides that upon expiry of a period of 90 days from the date of dispatch of the notice of possession, JPA, in addition to reserving the right to levy holding charges, also has the right to cancel the provisional allotment and refund the payments received from the applicant. The Commission observed that JPA had retained unilateral power to cancel the provisional allotment and the allottee has no option but to accept the unilateral decision of the JPA. The inclusion of such clause in terms and conditions of the PAL by JPA, a dominant player in the relevant market was one sided, arbitrary and anti-competitive, as per CCI.

(f) Clause 10.9: dispute resolution by arbitration

The Commission observes that the clauses pertaining to arbitration and conciliation in contracts encourage alternative dispute settlement mechanism which is the need of the hour keeping in mind the backlog and pendency of cases with civil courts. CCI was of the view that JPA, no doubt, had taken a step in this regard by incorporating this clause in the contract to ensure that disputes, if any, are settled expeditiously and amicably. However, one of the facets of justice is the presence of an impartial arbitrator and the same was not provided for by JPA. The conduct of JPA in appointing the arbitrator itself, that too the one related to it, and mandating that the allottees should waive the right to object to the above said appointment, was considered to be totally unfair and one sided.

Accordingly, CCI concluded that JPA had violated Section 4(2) (a) (i) of the Act for imposing unfair/discriminatory conditions in the PAL and imposed a penalty calculated @ of 5% of the average turnover of the preceding three years amounting to INR 3.82 crores.

Comment: This is the fourth case against JPA before the CCI and is unique because of delineation of a new relevant market for the provision of services for development and sale of independent residential units such as villas, estate homes, town homes and row-houses in integrated townships in Noida and Greater Noida'. An appeal is certainly going to be filed by JPA against this order and the market definition is likely to be the contentious issue in the appeal.

Note: This article first appeared on the Antitrust & Competition Law Blog

On 06 September 2019 .

Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

© 2019, 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.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions