Track2Realty-Agencies: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, Aug 27, ordered DLF to deposit Rs 630 crore in 3 months as a pre-condition for entertaining its appeal against the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) decision upholding a Competition Commission’s order imposing the hefty penalty.
In its May 19 order, a Compat bench headed by retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice V S Sirpurkar, had upheld three orders – August 12, 2011; August 29, 2011; and January 31, 2012 — of Competition Commission of India (CCI), which had imposed the penalty equivalent to 7% of DLF’s turnover after finding it guilty of abusing dominant position to seriously discomfit, both financially and in giving possession, flat owners in three Gurgaon apartments – Belaire, Park Palace and Magnolia.
A bench of Justices Ranjana P Desai and N V Ramana directed DLF to deposit the fine amount in the Supreme Court registry. When DLF sought six months’ time to comply with the direction, the bench asked it to deposit Rs 50 crore within three weeks and the rest Rs 580 crore in the next three months.
The bench also asked DLF to file an undertaking that in the event the apex court dismissed its appeal, it would pay the amount it could be asked to pay. The DLF said it remained confident about the merits of its appeal and added that it would comply with the apex court’s directive.
However, the DLF clarified saying, “The Supreme Court directed DLF to deposit Rs 630 crore in an interest-bearing fixed deposit with the Court for the duration of the appeal proceedings. The amount is to be deposited within a period of three months, of which Rs 50 crore is to be deposited within three weeks. The entire deposit is subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court.”
In its May 19 order, Justice Sirpurkar-headed COMPAT bench had said, “We are of the firm opinion that DLF had abused its dominant position and committed breach of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We accordingly confirm the findings of CCI to the extent that we have shown in this judgment.”
Authoring the 134-page judgment, COMPAT Chairman Justice Sirpurkar had said: “The CCI has inflicted a penalty of Rs 630 crore, which is 7% of the turnover of DLF. We cannot expect a leading player like DLF to go on in this fashion. After all as a dominant player in the market, it has a special duty to be within the four corners of law.”
It had rejected DLF’s plea that the CCI had not given enough reasons for imposing the hefty penalty. DLF had requested COMPAT to lessen the penalty as it had found that the CCI had incorrectly dealt with its appeal by wrongly relying on certain clauses of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (ABA).
COMPAT had said in its May 19 judgment, “We do not agree. An abuse of dominance whether it is on one account or on many remains an abuse and therefore it must be dealt with iron hands. We cannot be unmindful of the fact that the individual allottees even if they come from the highest strata of the society, either collectively or individually, were pitted against a mighty company, which brands itself to be the appellant and is the biggest real estate developer.”
“If the consumer is exploited by a mighty builder, then such mighty builder cannot claim soft attitude from the State. We therefore, refuse to bring down the penalty in any manner,” it had said.
In its May 19 order, Justice Sirpurkar-headed COMPAT bench had said, “We are of the firm opinion that DLF had abused its dominant position and committed breach of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. We accordingly confirm the findings of CCI to the extent that we have shown in this judgment.”
Authoring the 134-page judgment, COMPAT Chairman Justice Sirpurkar had said, “The CCI has inflicted a penalty of Rs 630 crore, which is 7% of the turnover of DLF. We cannot expect a leading player like DLF to go on in this fashion. After all as a dominant player in the market, it has a special duty to be within the four corners of law.”
It had rejected DLF’s plea that the CCI had not given enough reasons for imposing the hefty penalty. DLF had requested COMPAT to lessen the penalty as it had found that the CCI had incorrectly dealt with its appeal by wrongly relying on certain clauses of Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (ABA).
COMPAT had said, “We do not agree. An abuse of dominance whether it is on one account or on many remains an abuse and therefore it must be dealt with iron hands.”
“We cannot be unmindful of the fact that the individual allottees even if they come from the highest strata of the society, either collectively or individually, were pitted against a mighty company, which brands itself to be the appellant and is the biggest real-estate developer,” COMPAT had said in its May 19 judgment.
