NCLT asks CCI to re-examine order offering relief to DLF, subsidiary

The case is related to Regal Garden in Sector 90, DLF Garden City, Gurgaon, where an informant had complained against DLF, alleging that the clauses in the buyer-seller agreement reflected abuse of dominance by DLF Home Developers.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside a 4-year-old order by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in which the latter had provided relief to real estate developer DLF and its subsidiary DLF Home Developers over changes of misuse of its dominant market position, news agency PTI reported.

In a case registered in 2018, an informant filed a case against the developer and its real estate subsidiary, over alleged charges of abuse of dominant position in the builder-buyer agreement for its housing project Regal Garden at Sector 90, DLF Garden City, in Gurgaon.

The complainant has termed the builder-buyer agreement highly unfair and discriminatory.

Basing its order on a second report by the director-general (DG), the competition watchdog passed an order dated August 31, 2018, saying that the alleged “contravention of the provisions” of the Competition Act was not established against the developer and its wholly owned subsidiary.

The CCI order was subsequently challenged in the NCLAT, which has authority over the fairtrade regulator.

While stating that the CCI was not authorised to pass an order for further investigation if its probe unit has already noticed the violation in its first report, the NCLAT sent the matter back to CCI “to pass the order afresh on the basis of the first report” filed by the DG office.

“Without going into further detail or delving into the merit of the case the order impugned is liable to be set aside since the order is primarily passed on the supplementary investigation report submitted by the DG which was conducted on a void order of the CCI,” the 2-member NCLAT Bench said.

“Even though DG in its investigation report dated March 2016 noticed the violation, committed by Respondents under Section 4 of the Act, by its order dated November 9, 2016, the CCI directed the DG to conduct further investigation,” it added.

Was this article useful?
  • 😃 (0)
  • 😐 (0)
  • 😔 (0)

Recent Podcasts

  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 45Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 45
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 44Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 44
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 43Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 43
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 42Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 42
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 41Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 41
  • Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 40Keeping it Real: Housing.com podcast Episode 40