Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
Section 4 in the Competition Act, 2002
Section 3 in the Competition Act, 2002
Section 26(2) in the Competition Act, 2002
Section 19 in the Competition Act, 2002

View the actual judgment from court
User Queries
Competition Commission of India
Shri Girish Batra vs M/S Bptp Ltd. & Ors on 16 December, 2010

Case No 42 2010

Date: 16.12.2010

information against: M/s .BPTP Ltd. & Ors.

The present information has been filed under section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the Act)
against lvl/s. BPTP Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Party No.1) & Others, who are engaged in the

business of developing Business Parks and Residential Townships, for the alleged abuse of

dominant position. The Parties No.2 to 9 are the Directors of the Party No.1.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

2.1 The Information provider has submitted that the Party No.1 is engaged in the
construction of residential apartments and Villa and invites public to purchase the
apartments and Villas constructed by it.

2.2 As per the information provider, on the basis of the representation made in the
advertisement issued by the Party No.1 he applied for registration of Villa measuring
225 sq. yds. in the project of Party No.1, namely "Park Land" at Faridabad and had
made an advance payment also to Party No.1. As per the information provider, he had
made subsequent payments in respect thereof.

2.3 The information provider has alleged that the Party had delayed in handing over of the
possession of Villa and the information provider on making an enquiry came to know
that the Party has already abandoned the project. On enquiry, the Party No.1, vide
letter dated 23.03.2010, provided to the information provider various options like exit
option, re--allotment option etc.

2.4 It has been alleged by the Information provider that the Party No.1 was never the

owner of the piece of land on which they were selling as Apantments and Villas.



2.5 He alleges that the Parties are abusing their dominant position and imposing unfair and

discriminatory condition on him for the return of the money deposited towards
purchase of Villa from Party No.1.

2.6 The information provider, in support of his allegation regarding dominant position of
Party No.1, had filed with Commission Draft Red Herring Prospectus on 22.11.2010 and
submitted that the BPTP Limited, in its Draft Red Herring Prospectus, has claimed itself
being the largest Real Estate Company in Faridabad. The information provider has
emphasized that the Party No.1 being the largest Real Estate Company in Faridabad is in
dominant position in Faridabad. He has also filed written submissions dated 13.12.2010
in which he has, with reference to the Red Herring Prospectus of BPTP, reiterated that

the claim of BPTP Ltd. regarding it being the largest Real Estate Company in Faridabad

be taken into account for its dominant position in Faridabad.

The Commission considered all the relevant material placed on record, oral submissions
of the Counsel of the information provider and the written submissions dated


filed by the information provider in its meeting held on 16.12.2010. On going through the information and the submissions on behalf of the information provider it is noted that the main grievance of the information provider is that the BPTP Ltd. had advertised for the sale of residential Villas in Fariclabad without acquiring the ownership of the land for said Villas. It is also admitted case of the Party which is reflected from the reply submitted on behalf of Party BPTP Ltd. to the legal notice served by the information provider. The project which is subject of information could not materialize due to BPTP's inability to procure the land from the land owners. The BPTP Ltd., on its inability to acquire the land for the construction of the Villas, had offered exit plan, re--allotment option to the information providers. The perusal of the terms and conditions of the application submitted by the information provider reveals that if Party No.1, BPTP Ltd. is not in a offer of U.' allotment for any reason, the applicant/information provider is entitled to a refund of the advance for provisional registration amount paid along with a simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of such payment. According to the information provider, the possession of the Villa was not handed over to him due to inability of the Party No.1, BPTP Ltd., to procure the land. However Party No.1, BPTP. Ltd., made a claim that the construction of the proposed Villa is going on. According to this claim, the construction linked payment from the information provider was demanded by BPTP Ltd. in the present information, neither a violation of Section 3 of the Act, in particular, has been claimed nor is any case of an agreement amongst competitors, either at the same level of or at different stages of the production chain, made out. Therefore, Section 3 of the Act is not attracted on the facts of the case.

As per the information available on public domain, it is evident that Party No.1 BPTP is a well known name in the Real Estate Market and one of the prominent players in Faridabad. From the various websites, like, and, which account for most of the organized players, it is seen that there are many players of the size of BPTP in the geographic area of Faridabad in the same line of business. BPTP Ltd, though having a brand value in the market, cannot operate independently of the competitive forces prevailing in the market. Also it is not in a position to affect the competitors in the market in its favour. There is no material on record to indicate that BPTP can be considered to be in a dominant position. irrespective of the way in which the market is defined. Primafacie it does not appear to possess sufficient market power in terms of explanation la) Section 4 of the Act. So primafacie there is no contravention of Section 4 in this case. In view of the above, and after considering the entire material and submissions of authorized representative of the information provider, the Commission is of the opinion that the allegations as made in the information and the reliefs as prayed by the information provider do not fall within the ambit of Act. On examVi_niVatiifofilgfitlieg-facts and

9. in view of the above. the matte :i.reun'is:ai'i:e;é of the :;ir'egen*~. case, the Commission is aisc; of the view that the :r.;' these 7' ct: aptieai": 1:. ::ie not case of abuse of ciontinanrge. The inz'ormatio:u _DE'=C)\/iCi€7' has aiso not oeen abie to piace any credibie or cogerit evidence/'mateiiai EC; sncm or " ' 35.» ,--,--.a .--.'I - . »' '; :F\ e 'V establish the iW.'l;IgE:".ii.'.1. cw :>€CtiC>i". 2, or »4 oi' tn: Adi 1.. aiiegations made by the ii'ii{)F'flWWIiOFi arovider have remained umgtibstantiated anti uncorroborated. The :.C)mm!:SiC)i'i, therefore, is of the viev» that no prime ti-:ie case made out for making r'e"s'ei*en:e to the Director General for condu-:':'ng investigation into this matter under 3E'Ci',|C)E"': 26 (1) of the Act and the moceedings reiating to this information are requisec to be dosed forthwith.

.\.,I' reiating to this information is hereby dosed under section 26(2) of the Competition Act.

10. Secretar I is directed to int'oi*m the information rovicier according! I. 1 /V /"\ "y