Supertech not in dominant market position to abuse it: CCI

NEW DELHI: Competition watchdog CCI has dismissed the charges of abuse of dominant market position against real estate company Supertech for residential flats in Noida and Greater Noida.

In an order dated May 31, Competition Commission of India (CCI) said that Supertech "prima facie, does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market, there seems to be no question of abuse of its dominant position within the meaning of the provisions of... the (Competition) Act".

According to CCI, the relevant market in this case was "services for development and sale of residential apartments in the region of Noida and Greater Noida".

In a complaint against Supertech, an individual had alleged that the company being a dominant player in Noida region had abused its position by cancelling his allotted apartment without any reasonable basis.

It was alleged that the real-estate company having control on the flats had "arbitrarily, malafidely, wrongly, deliberately and intentionally cancelled the allotment of the flat to the consumers".

The complainant had booked a residential flat in Greater Noida, to be constructed by Supertech.

As per the complaint, following a dispute between Supertech and the farmers and its subsequent resolution, the price escalation over the period of time led to an increase in the construction price for Supertech in Noida.

Thereafter, the complaint alleged that Supertech abused its dominant position to deprive the original allottees of the flats at the price duly agreed between them.

It said that in order to achieve this motive, Supertech had arbitrarily and mischievously issued a letter to the complainant for cancellation of the flat.

Moreover, the complainant had alleged the company of colluding with other real estate firms so that the cancelled flats could be re-sold to new buyers at higher prices.
However, CCI has said the allegation that Supertech colluded with other companies "seems to be mis-conceived as the real estate enterprises (including the opposite party-Supertech) were not shown to have agreed/colluded to adopt similar practice of cancelling prior allotments with the objective to fetch higher prices".

It also noted that the presence of other builders in the region negates the contention that any of the consumers were dependent on Supertech to purchase an apartment.
"Presence of other builders of repute also shows prevalence of competition," it added.