CCI RULES OUT ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION BY OMAXE

Applicable Act: Competition Act, 2002

Present information was filed by Mr. Naresh Bansal & Mr. Gagan Deep Goel (Informants) against M/s Omaxe Limited (OP, Opposite Party). The Informants have alleged that OP has violated the provisions of the Act with regard to development of a Real Estate Project.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

OP is the Real Estate Developer and was asked by the Informants to specify the location and sought allotment of plot or refund of amount paid by the Informants to get registered for plots with Interest. For the same, Informants paid certain sums to the OP. The OP confirmed the allotment of the plot bearing no. 1343 in Omaxe city project at Sonepat, Haryana. However, Informants came to know that OP cancelled its earlier allotment and re-alloted a plot bearing no. 1886 in the same project.

Later,  OP issued cancellation letter to the Informants citing default in payment as the reason. The Informants alleged that this willful cancellation is arbitrary in nature and damaged and restricted the rights of the Informant which is abuse of dominance by the OP under section 4 of the Act.

It is evident that the market for service for development of residential plots in Sonepat district of Haryana is very broad and highly competitive. The presence of other Real Estate players in Haryana made it a competitive market.

There is no information on record and available in the public domain which shows a position of strength of OP enabling it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market.

ALLEGATIONS

1. Informants, who had registered for plots with OP, had alleged that the firm made a representation to the public at large regarding a real estate project without specifying the details and identity of the property.
2. Informants alleged that OP had abused its dominant market position by imposing one-sided and anti-competitive agreements on buyers of plots, among others.
3. Among others, it was also alleged that under the agreement, there was no exit route to buyers of plots in case of violation of terms on part of OP and the company would not have to face any consequences for same.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons mentioned above, there arises no competition concern under sections 3 or 4 of the Act.

DECISION

CCI has rejected the complaint that alleged OP of indulging in anti-competitive practices with respect to development of residential plots in Sonepat district of Haryana.