The Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) has said a new Bench will decide the DLF case wherein the realty major has challenged Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) Rs 630 crore penalty on it and the final hearing has been adjourned to July 18.
The Compat Chairman, Justice Arijit Pasayat, who is retiring on May 9, said during the proceedings that a new Bench formed under the new Chairman, who is yet to be appointed, would take a decision on the case.
Pasayat said that “since the Bench is not sitting post May 9, it was not possible to pass an order at this stage”, and adjourned the final hearing on the matter to July 18.
Apart from Justice Pasayat, two other members Rahul Sarin and Pravin Tripathi are part of the Bench.
Compat also denied the plea of DLF to put its order of March 29 in abeyance till the next date of hearing.
Passing an interim order, the tribunal had sent the draft of the modified terms and conditions to the Competition Commission of India asking it to pass an order under Section 27(d) of the Competition Act.
Compat is conducting daily hearings of the DLF plea challenging Rs 630 crore penalty imposed on it by fair trade watchdog CCI after finding the realty major guilty of abuse of the dominant market position.
On August 12, CCI imposed the penalty on DLF for alleged abuse of its dominant position and passed a ‘cease and desist’ order over unfair conditions imposed on the buyers of its flats.
In late August, CCI had passed another order in a separate case wherein it asked DLF to ‘cease and desist’ from misuse of dominant position but did not impose any penalty.
These orders followed inquiries into complaints filed by the flat buyer associations’ of two separate DLF projects in Gurgaon, DLF Park Palace and The Belaire, alleging delays in the project and increase in the number of floors than planned earlier, among other things.
The company had challenged the CCI directive on various grounds, including the jurisdiction of the case, the basis for determining relevant market and dominant position and not being served with show-cause notices before the order was passed.
