DLF is a dominant enterprise in developing commercial space in Kolkata? CCI analyses

Competition Commission of India (CCI): On finding that DLF being a new entrant in developing commercial space in Kolkata and having only one property, Commission held that the same cannot be treated as a dominant enterprise which can operate independently of competitive forces.

Instant information was filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 by Informant 1 and Informant 2 against DLF Commercial Complexes Limited (OP 1) and others alleging inter alia, abuse of dominant position in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act.

Analysis and Decision

Commission found that the only allegation made against DLF was that by abusing its dominant position in the relevant market DLF has imposed unfair conditions in the sale of commercial space in its project DLF Galleria located in Kolkata.

Though the informant had miserably failed to furnish any facts or figures to show that DLF enjoys a dominant position in developing commercial space in the metropolis of Kolkata.

Further, as per the information available in the public domain the DLF, being a new entrant in developing commercial space in Kolkata, is having only one property related to commercial retail space.

In view of the above-said factors, DLF cannot be treated as a dominant enterprise which can operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or affect the competitors or the relevant market in its favour.

Coram expressed that, as the factum of DLF enjoying a dominant position in developing commercial space in Kolkata has neither been established by the informant nor it has been substantiated from the information available in the public domain no case of violation of section 4 of the Act was made out against DLF.

Therefore, no prima facie case was made out for making a reference to the Director-General for conduction investigation into the matter. [Rajarhat Welfare Association v. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd., Case No. 10 of 2011, decided on 25-5-2022]

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.