UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT

1. The present information has been filed by Shri Praveen Kumar Sodhi ('the informant') under section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ('the Act') against M/s Omaxe Limited ('the OP No. 1') and its Chairman-cum- Managing Director and the executive Directors alleging inter alia abuse of dominant position in contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated, the informant in February, 2005 booked a residential flat bearing No. 604 in the tower Richmond of the group housing project Omaxe Hills promoted by the opposite parties at Faridabad. The allotment was confirmed by the OP No. 1 on 12.09.2006. In May, 2007 the OP No. 1 sent two original copies of Buyer's Agreement to the informant for being signed and sent back. The informant complied therewith accordingly. As the construction of the tower was not completed till the year 2010 as promised, the informant approached the opposite parties requesting for a final date of completion. To this, the OP No. 1 insisted upon the informant to pay further instalments. The opposite parties also threatened the informant to cancel the allotment if a payment of Rs. 5 lac was not made to the OP No. 1.

3. On the visit of the Office of the OP No. 1, the informant was told that the booked flat will not be handed over to the informant. The opposite parties asked the informant to make further payments for some other flat as the allotment of flat No. 604 was stated to be cancelled. The OP No. 1 planned to allot some other flat to the informant in another tower viz. Windsor. An agreement was sent by the opposite parties to the informant for the allotment of flat in Windsor.

4. The informant has alleged that the change in plan, floor, flat and building by the opposite parties was fraudulent. The informant has also alleged that the opposite parties had assured that the flats would be ready by the year 2009, but looking at present stage of construction there was no scope of possession even by March, 2012.

5. The informant alleged that the OP No. 1 made a sudden change in the plan, without an approval of the informant and cancelled the flat allotted to him after getting handsome amount from the informant and changed the flat which was never agreed upon. The act has been described by the informant as a fraudulent and deceitful conduct of the opposite parties.

6. The informant averred that the OP No. 1 being in dominant position was putting pressure on the informant to agree to changed flat. However, by virtue of the documents in his favour (Buyer's Agreement and allotment letter), he was the actual allottee of the subject flat and had custodian rights till the performance of the contract between the parties and had right to deal with the same in a manner he might choose. The informant had become dependent on the opposite parties' terms, since a large amount has already been invested by the informant. The opposite parties were taking undue advantage of the money so deposited and have threatened the informant to put more money otherwise the previously deposited amount shall be forfeited. By such threats, the opposite parties were abusing their dominant position to impose undue and unfair restrictions over the informant.

7. On these averments and allegations, the informant made following prayers to the Commission:

(i) To restrain the opposite parties from abusing dominant position in a manner to harm and hurt the interest of the informant;

(ii) To restrain the opposite parties from compelling the informant to enter into an agreement for the allotment of a flat other than the already allotted flat no. 604 in 'Richmond' Apartment at Omaxe Hills, Faridabad;

(iii) To restrain the opposite parties from allotment of flat (s) in the 'Richmond' Apartment to any other person unless the present matter was resolved;

(iv) To restrain the opposite parties from forfeiting the money deposited by the informant for flat no. 604 or such other flat only in '