In February 2019, the complainant informed the CCI that she did not wish to pursue the instant case, since all the pending disputes with the firm have been settled.
Under the Competition Act, complaints filed under a certain section cannot be withdrawn.
It was alleged that conditions in Provisional Allotment Letter (PAL) were unfair, one-sided and loaded in the favour of the company.
In 2015, the regulator ordered the Director General (DG), its investigation arm, to conduct a detailed probe into the matter.
For the case, the CCI considered 'the market for provision of services for development and sale of independent residential units such as villas, estate homes, town homes and row-houses in integrated townships in Noida and Greater Noida regions' as the relevant one.
The regulator found Jaiprakash Associates to be in dominant position in the relevant market.
Based on the DG's reports and regulator's examination of the issues, CCI found clause pertaining to defaults in the PAL was heavily in favour of the Jaiprakash Associates. Under the pact, there was only a marginal penalty on the firm for any default while the allottees were to pay a huge fine.
Similarly, the fair trade regulator found that there were various clauses which were one-sided and tilted in favour of real estate firm.
"It is clear that the terms and conditions in the PAL are unfair and one sided and are couched in a manner so as to unilaterally favour the OP and be unfavourable to the consumers. Moreover, the allotment letter executed by the OP (Jaiprakash Associates) is vague and does not confer any substantive rights on the buyers." CCI said in an order dated August 9.
By doing so, the real estate firm contravened Section 4 of Competition Act which pertains to abuse of dominant position.
"Imposition of unfair and discriminatory condition by Jaiprakash Associates who was dominant player in the relevant market at the relevant time has serious adverse effects on the market and on their consumers," CCI said.
Accordingly, the CCI imposed a penalty of Rs 13.82 crore, arrived at by calculating 5 per cent of turnover earned by the firm during relevant period (2009-10 to 2011-12) by the regulator.
Regarding the plea made in February 2019 to not pursue the matter, the Commission observed that "the scheme of the Act and the regulations made thereunder do not provide for withdrawal of the information filed under Section 19 of the Act".
Section 19 pertains to inquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of an enterprise.
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.