Name of the

party
Case
no.
Grounds of judgment
1. Dwarkadhish
43/201
2
No dominane of position !y the opposite party is
esta!"ished and so there is no hane of a!use of
dominant position !y the party. #nd a"so there were
many other !ui"ding projets in progress !y other
market p"ayers.
2. $irko
de%e"opers
&'/2011
Dominant position was not pro%ed( and e%en other
remedies did not fa"" under se 3 ) 4 of the at.
3. *o"kata west
internationa"
++/2011
,i- .he informant fai"ed to gi%e any information of the
surrounding townships( projets and market share of
the other market p"ayers
,ii- /ni0ueness of the projet annot !e onsidered
as the !asis of re"e%ant market( !eause if done so
eah projet !ui"t !y different !ui"ders anywhere in
ountry wi"" ha%e to !e onsidered as re"e%ant market
ha%ing no su!stitute and the area how so e%er sma"" it
may !e has to !e onsidered as re"e%ant geographi
market and eah wou"d attrat the pro%ision of the se
4( whih is not the intent of the #t.
4. 1ma2e
33/2011
Dominane of position was not esta!"ished and so no
issue of a!use. #nd pro%ision setion 3,4- annot !e
used !y end onsumer.
+ 4ure earth
10/2012
1pposite party not in dominant position( so no hane
of a!use of dominant position. #nd the party has not
ontra%ened any pro%ision of se 4.
&. 5uperteh
23/2012
No dominant position is made out aording to se 4
and there is no e%idene of dominane of the other
party.
'. /niteh
4/2012
Neither the opposite party was found in dominant
position nor was the dependene of the onsumer on
the enterprise suh as to !e onsidered as dominant
p"ayer.
3. 6maar
20/2012
No materia" or data p"aed to suggest that the
opposite party enjoyed a position of strength( no
materia"s pro%ided to ommission as re0uired under
se17 ,4- to determine dominane of position. #nd no
materia"s pro%ided to pro%e the ontra%ention of se 3
of the Competition #t.
7. 62at
de%e"oper
''/2011
.he opposite party do not appear to !e in dominant
position as there are %arious other de%e"oper in the
market and those are superior in si8e and strength as
ompared to opposite party. #nd as the party is not in
dominant position there is no 0uestion of a!use of
dominant position.
#nd some omp"aints were regarding the unfair
trade praties not ompetition issues( so this shou"d
fa"" in ontratua" issue not the issue of ompetition.
Name of the
party
Case
no.
Ground of the judgments
10.
$599DC 7/2012
.he informant neither e2press"y nor imp"ied"y
e2p"ained what the re"e%ant market was and how the
opposite party was a dominant p"ayer in market.
11. :aheja
de%e"opers
&2/2011
.here are a "arge no of p"ayers present in the market
whih are in fat more superior to :aheja de%e"opers
in gurgaon. :aheja de%e"opers are not in dominant
position as per se 17,4- and so there is no hane
of a!use of dominant position.
12. 5enior !ui"ders
2'/2012
9t has not !een stated !y the informant how the
5enior !ui"der ated dominant"y neither ha%e a""eged
any "ause that the agreement was anti ompetiti%e.
#nd un"ess it is shown !y the party it annot !e said
that 5enior !ui"ders are in dominant position. .he
dispute !etween the parties does not onern
ompetition at.
13.
.oday homes 30/2011
i- No e%idene a!out the dominane of the party in
terms of market share and other fators in se 17,4-
and there are no. of superior de%e"opers in market.
#s the 1pposite party is not dominant( no 0uestion of
dominant position arises.
ii- 9t was a"so found that the ase in%o"%ed
ontratua" or onsumer dispute and no ompetition
issues were raised( so se 3 ) 4 are e%en not
ontra%ened
14.
/ni%ersa"
;ui"ders
2&/2012
.he grie%ane of informant did not fa"" within the
aegis of the #t. #nd there was no a!use of dominant
position nor there was any ontra%ention made out
under se 3 of the ompetition #t.