Noting that "no case of contravention of either Section 3 or Section 4 of the (Competition) Act" is made out against the two entities, the CCI, through an order dated June 11, closed the matter.
Section 3 and Section 4 pertain to anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant market position, respectively.
As per the complainant, an agreement entered into between the parties, stated that till the offer of possession is given by Panchsheel, the loan instalments of the flat had to be paid to Tata Capital Housing Finance by Panchsheel.
It was alleged that Panchsheel and Tata Capital Housing Finance had entered into an anti-competitive agreement whereby no instalment was paid by the former to the latter.
Dismissing the allegation of anti-competitive agreement between, the fair trade regulator said the complainant has placed no evidence on record which can even remotely suggest the existence of any agreement between Panchsheel and Tata Capital Housing Finance.
Considering the "provision of services relating to development and sale of residential apartments/ flats in Noida and Greater Noida" as the relevant market for the case, CCI noted that Panchsheel is not a dominant player in it.
In the absence of dominant position of Panchsheel in the relevant market, any question of abuse of dominance by it would not arise, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said.
"Thus, in view of the Commission, no contravention by OP-1 (Panchsheel) of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act is also made out," it added.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)