DELHI: Fair trade regulator CCI has dismissed the charges of abuse of dominant position against four real estate firms in the market for residential flats.
In four separate orders passed earlier this month, Competition Commission of India (CCI) said that realty firms-- Sanathnagar Enterprises, Media Video, Designarch Infrastructure and City Corporation -- prima facie, did not "appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market."
The complaints against the companies were mostly related to alleged anti-competitive practices in the builder-buyer agreements.
In the case of Sanathnagar Enterprises -- an associate company of real-estate major Lodha Group, the Casa Paradiso Owner's Welfare Association in Hyderabad had complained that the company's 'Agreement for Sale' was one sided, highly in favour of the seller and contained wrong facts.
Casa Paradiso (Hyderabad) was launched by Lodha Group through Sanathnagar Enterprises in October 2010.
"Since Opposite Party (Sanathnagar), prima facie, does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to deal with the issue of abuse by Opposite Party of its dominant position within the meaning of the provisions ...of the (Competition) Act," CCI said in the order dated September 2.
In an order relating to residential units on Bhiwadi - Alwar Bypass in Rajasthan developed by Media Video, an individual had alleged the firm of abusing its dominant position by neither giving possession of apartment nor permitting him to transfer the flat to a third party.
Besides, CCI also dropped the matter against Designarch Infrastructure that alleged the company of adopting anti- competitive practices for the allotment of their designer homes branded as e-homes (electronic/eco-friendly homes) in Vaishali and Greater Noida.
The complainant had alleged that the allotment agreement imposed obligations upon the builder/promoter/developer to make true disclosure of all details before allotment, but the that the Designarch Infrastructure failed to provide all such information to the allotee, among others.
Seperately, a complainant had alleged that an anti- competitive agreement was thrust upon him by City Corporation and that the company "abused its dominant position by not addressing the objections raised against the anti-competitive clauses of the draft agreement to lease". The case was related to residential flats in Pune.
However, the regulator observed that "there was nothing on record or otherwise to show that City Corporation could operate independent of the market forces in the relevant market".