New Delhi: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) on Wednesday rejected allegations of anti-competitive practices made against realty major DLF related to a project in the national capital.
DLF is already under the scanner of the competition watchdog, which earlier this year ordered two separate probes against the realty company.
DLF was also fined Rs 630 crore by CCI in another case in August 2011, which was later set aside by the Competition Appellate Tribunal after which the regulator approached the Supreme Court.
The latest complaint pertained to apartments booked in the residential project DLF Capital Greens, Phase III, in the national capital.
The fair trade regulator has dismissed the allegations after finding that prima-facie there was no violation of competition norms especially since DLF is not in a dominant position in the relevant market.
For this case, ‘provision of services relating to development and sale of residential apartment in Delhi’ was considered as the relevant market.
“Since DLF is not found to be in a dominant position, the question of its conduct being abusive does not arise,” CCI said in its order.
According to CCI, the complainants were primarily aggrieved with the alleged abusive conduct of DLF in regards to making false representations regarding delivery schedule, concealing information relating to requisite approvals/sanctions and selling of parking spaces, among others.
The regulator noted that in the geographical region of Delhi, DLF is just one of the real estate developers engaged in the provision of services relating to development and sale of residential apartment.
“There are many other real estate developers operating in Delhi who are engaged in the provision of services relating to the development and sale of similar residential dwelling units. Some of such developers include Delhi Development Authority, Ansal API, Umang Realtech, Emaar Group, CGHS Group, Parsvnath, etc.”
“These developers appear to pose competitive constraints to DLF in the relevant market,” the order said.
Presence of other real estate developers in the relevant market indicates that the informants (complainants) were not dependent upon DLF for purchasing residential apartments, it added.
The complaint was filed by Ess Cee Securities and Signature Securities.