In both the matters, it was alleged that the Opposite Party group (DLF and DLF New Gurgaon Home Developers), being a dominant player in the market, had imposed unfair and arbitrary terms and conditions in the apartment buyer's agreement and that such conduct violated the provision of Section 4 of the Competition Act.
Section 4 pertains to abuse of dominant market position.
For the cases, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) considered the market for 'provision of services for development and sale of residential apartments/ flats in Gurgaon' as the relevant one.
"Since the OP (Opposite Party) group does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant period with the changed scenario, there remains no requirement to examine the allegations of abuse of dominance, since in the absence of dominance there can be no case of abuse of dominance in terms of Section 4 of the Act," the CCI said in its orders.
The regulator noted that it is conscious of the fact that the OP group was found to be in a dominant position in a separate case in 2010 and in other subsequent cases.
However, the properties in relation to which the current allegations of abuse have been made were booked in 2011-12 and 2012-13, whereas in the previous cases the properties were booked during 2006-09, the CCI said.
Noting that several new players have entered the geographic market of Gurgaon to provide the services of development of residential apartments, the regulator said in such a "changed market scenario" during the relevant period no individual player, including the OP group, appears to have the ability to influence the conditions of competition in the relevant market.
The regulator also made a reference to the probe into both the cases by its investigation arm -- the Director General (DG). In February 2015, the CCI had ordered investigations after "prima facie" observing that the conduct of the OP group was abusive.
The investigations by the DG show that the market dynamics as they existed then (2006-09) are "different" from those in 2011-12 and 2012-13, the CCI said.
The regulator noted that the contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act "is not established" and accordingly, disposed of the complaints.
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.