9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of OP does not seem to be much in comparison to these other players in the relevant market. Also there seems to be no entry barriers or any dependence of buyers on OP for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, prima facie, it does not appear that OP held a dominant position in the relevant market. Since OP, prima facie, does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market, there seems to be no question of abuse of its dominant position within the meaning of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. - Case close down. - CASE NOS. 21 TO 23 OF 2014 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2014 - ASHOK CHAWLA, ANURAG GOEL, S.L. BUNKER, SUDHIR MITTAL, AND AUGUSTINE PETER, JJ. J.M. Kalia, Aadil Ali and Eti Sinha for the Informant. ORDER UND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the allottees. However, it was submitted, that subsequently the informants received another application-cum-registration form dated 04.03.2013 from the OP containing detailed terms and conditions which were inconsistent with the earlier application cum registration form dated 28.09.2012. 4. It was also contended that a fresh price-list and brochure pertaining to the same project was released by OP whereby not only the price was hiked but also the floors in the tower 'A' 'B' were increased from the earlier 14 floors to 19 floors. However, the CLP remained the same meaning thereby that though the Informants would pay the entire amount up to the construction of 14 floors; the OP will continue to construct the towers even t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entered into between a customer and provider of goods/services (real estate developer in this case), the latter becomes dominant by virtue of the locked in position of the former. The counsel of the informant cited the supplementary order in Case No. 19/2010 (Belaire Owners' Association vs DLF Limited, HUDA Ors.) to support this contention. It was argued every consumer has to be taken independently to test the position of the enterprise in the market. In such cases section 19(4) of the Act is irrelevant as the exploitative (abusive) conduct has to be seen qua a consumer. 7. The Commission has considered the arguments made by the counsel of the informant. The informant is primarily aggrieved by abuse of dominant position by the OPs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. whether the OP held a dominant position or not, the relevant market needs to be analysed to assess OP's dominance/position. The contention of the informant's counsel with regard to assessment of dominance of an enterprise in case of exploitative abuses seems misconceived. The factors stated under section 19(4) of the Act needs to be considered while assessing dominance of an enterprise. Such an analysis cannot be avoided as contended by the informant's counsel. The dominance of an enterprise is always seen with regard to the state of competition in its own relevant market and not with regard to the individual consumer it is dealing. As per OP's own website, it had only one residential project in the relevant market. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
