Competition Commission of India rules out abuse of dominance by realty firm BPTP
Written by Admin Tuesday, 20 August 2013
( 1 Vote )
NEW DELHI: Fair trade regulator CCI has dismissed allegations of abuse of dominant market position against realty firm BPTP over residential flats in Faridabad.
In its order dated July 31, Competition Commission of India (CCI) said BPTP Ltd “prima facie, does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market, there seems to be no question of abuse of its dominant position within the meaning of the provisions of… (Competition) Act”.
An individual in a complaint against BPTP, had alleged the firm of malpractices and abuse of its dominant position related to a residential unit he had booked in Faridabad, which was being developed by the company.
BPTP was alleged of unilaterally changing terms of an agreement, illegitimately demanding cost escalation charges and delaying possession, among others.
According to the regulator, the documents submitted by the complainant did not substantiate his case.
“The draft red herring prospectus gives an overview of the booming real estate industry to attract investors for Opposite Party’s (BPTP) public issue of equity shares,” CCI said.
“Self claim of being the ‘biggest’ or ‘No 1? by companies do not amount to establishment of dominance as required under the Act,” CCI noted.
Moreover, the regulator noted that presence of other builders of repute in Faridabad showed “prevalence of competition”.
As per CCI norms, “dominant position means position of strength, enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market, in India which enables it to operate independently of competitive forces or affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour”.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/real-estate/news/competition-commission-of-india-rules-out-abuse-of-dominance-by-realty-firm-bptp/articleshow/21620187.cms
, ,
< Gurgaon, Faridabad among 31 over-exploited areas | DELAY IN DEPOSITING PLOT PRICE – HUDA told to decide case as per earlier policy > |
---|