The Competition Commission has rejected complaints of unfair business practices against -- Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure and Vardhman Properties.
The allegations of anti-competitive practices pertained to realty projects of these entities in the national capital region.
In three separate orders released recently, Competition Commission of India (CCI) said it found "prima facie, no case" of violation of the competition law against these entities.
The complaint against YEIDA pertained to abuse of dominant position in the market for development and sale of residential plots in Noida, Greater Noida and Yamuna Expressway falling within the district of Gautam Budh Nagar.
The complainants, allottees of residential plots developed by YEIDA, had alleged that it imposed unfair and one-sided terms and conditions in the 'letter of transfer of allotment rights'.
The complaint in this case were also filed against Department of Stamp & Registration and Sub-Registrar at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh.
CCI noted that YEIDA does not appear to be in a dominant position in the relevant market and hence there seems to be no question of abuse of dominance. It also rejected charges against the other two entities.
In the case of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure, the complaint was filed by two individuals who had brought plot of land in township project of the entity at Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana.
The complaints had alleged that the entity had abused its dominant position by imposing arbitrary conditions, changing the nature of transaction from free hold to conditional transfer, holding title and control of the property in its hand, among others, which was in contradiction to the terms and conditions agreed upon.
Meanwhile, the matter against Vardhman Properties was related to abuse of dominant position in the market for commercial units in shopping malls in Delhi.
In a complaint, Vardhman Plus Citi Mall Traders Welfare Association had alleged that 'Builder Buyers Agreements' executed with the realty player in respect of 'Vardhman Plus City Mall' at Dwarka in Delhi were unilateral, one-sided and unfair.
Besides Vardhman, the complainants had also filed the case against DDA, MCD and the Delhi Police.
"Since there is no information available on record and on the public domain to show the position of strength of the opposite party 1 (Vardhman Properties) which enables it to operate independently of the competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market, prima facie, opposite party 1 does not appear to be in a dominant position in," CCI said.
