Fact of the case is as under: LDF launched a Group Housing Complex (The Belaire) in Gurgaon, planned to construct 5 multistoried residential buildings. It was alleged that various clauses of the house agreement had impos

The facts of the given case is similar to DLF Case. Facts: DLF launched a Group Housing Complex (The Belaire) in Gurgaon, planned to construct 5 multistoried residential buildings. The informant filed an instant case under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002(The Act) and alleged that DLF, by abusing its dominant position, imposed highly arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable conditions on the informant through its agreements. As a matter of fact, the rights of the informant in this agreement were affected by the DLF. The Informant further, alleged that the various clauses of the house agreement had imposed unilateral and one sided clauses and the action of DLF pursuant thereto was prima facie unfair and discriminatory, thus attracting the provisions of Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) asked Director General (DG) to investigate the allegations on DLF, as a dominant player in market and whether there exist a relevant market. The DG's investigation report observed that allegations made by the informant were true and the Act was applicable in this respective case. It was observed that DLF in exercise of its market power and dominance violated the Section 19 (4) and also has imposed unfair conditions of sale to consumers, which violated Section 4(2) (a) (i) of the Act. Held: CCI held that DLF has contravened the Section 4 (2) (a) (i) and (ii), directly and indirectly, imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions in the sale of services. CCI found DLF guilty of abusing its dominant position in the market and imposed a penalty of ₹630 crores on DLF. The CCI further directed DLF to cease and desist from formulating and imposing such unfair conditions in its Agreement with buyers in Gurgaon and to suitably modify unfair conditions imposed on its buyers as referred to above, within 3 months of the date of receipt of the order on DLF. DLF challenged the CCI order before COMPAT which granted stay order against the CCI order of imposing penalty under section 27 (b) of the Act subject to DLF furnishing an undertaking to pay 9% interest on the amount of penalty to be determined by COMPAT for the period from the date of order by CCI till the date of payment by DLF. Further, COMPAT ordered that the directions of CCI for modifications of terms of the Agreement shall remain in abeyance. However, the direction of CCI to "cease and desist" with the implementation of the Agreement was not stayed. Therefore, the applicant will succeed and there is contravention of the provisions of Competition Act, 2002.