E-homes with pre-fitted gadgets akin to other residential units; their developer isn’t dominant player

E-homes with facilities like wifi, finger print security cannot be said to be different from other residential units

Facts:

a) The informant, allottee of e-homes, filed information alleging abuse of dominance by Opposite Party (‘OP’) for adopting anti-competitive practices for the allotment of their e-homes;

b) He alleged that the e-homes developed by OP were likely to attract buyers who wanted to buy homes pre-fitted with hi-tech gadgets like wifi, finger print security system, parkings lots, etc;

c) He also contended that the OP created the special category of e-homes and had acquired a 100% dominant status for being the only real estate developer to design and develop such e-homes in Delhi/NCR;

d) As a result of the dominance enjoyed by OP, it started demanding high premiums and forced allottees to sign an Allotment Agreement.

The Competition Commission held as under:

1) The argument of informant that 'the provision for services of e-home' was a distinct product having separate market for itself, does not seem to be convincing because the facilities being provided by the OP like prefitted hi-tech gadgets, i.e., wifi, finger print security system, parking lots, etc., could easily be installed in any house without much structural modifications and alterations;

2) Thus, e-homes in question couldn’t be deemed as different products from other residential flats;

3) There has been no information in the public domain to prove that the OP was a dominant real estate developer in the relevant market and it had been abusing its position of dominance;

4) As per the information in public domain, there were several upcoming residential projects in Delhi/NCR and OP was not the only real estate developer in the relevant geographical market;

5) Therefore, the OP did not, prima facie, appear to be a dominant player in the relevant market. In the absence of dominance of OP in the relevant market, there was, prima facie, no reason for abuse of dominance in that market - Achyut P. Rao v. Designarch Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 380 (CCI)

‘Son of Sardar’ losses against ‘Jab tak hai Jaan’; recital between single screen theatre owners and YRF held valid

The Ajay Devgn Films (“ADF”) alleged that Yash Raj Films (“YRF”) while distributing the rights to exhibit ‘Ek Tha Tiger’ put a condition on single screen theater owners that they would have to simultaneously exhibit the other film ‘Jab Tak Hai Jaan’ to be released on the eve of Diwali. The ADF further alleged that, since there was a threat that the YRF would not allow to exhibit the movie ‘Ek Tha Tiger’ if the contract to exhibit ‘Jab Tak Hai Jaan’ was not entered simultaneously, it amounted to abuse of dominance and violation of section 3 and 4 of Competition Act. ADF argued that the agreement between theater owners and YRF was a tie-in arrangement.
The grievance of the ADF arose because of its fear that it would not get enough theaters for the movie ‘Son of Sardar’ releasing on the same date as of ‘Jab Tak Hai Jaan’

The Commission held in favour of YRF as under:

a) The impugned agreement would not be affecting the competition in the Indian market as such or would not create any barriers for new entrants or drive existing competitors out of the market;

b) The single screen theater owners took competitive business decision in their interest to screen two films of YRF. Such agreement was purely commercial in nature between parties promoting their economic interests;

c) Since single screen theater owners had liberty either to agree or not to agree, the agreement could not be said to be a restraint on the freedom of business of theater owners;

d) The release of any other film including ‘Son of Sardar’ could be postponed or preponed as per availability of the screens;

e) The market could not be restricted to any particular festival period like Eid or Diwali and the market had to be considered a market available throughout the year;

f) Further, the ADF didn’t present any evidence to prove the dominant position of the YRF in the film industry. In the absence of evidence of its market share, economic strength, etc. it could not be construed that YRF had dominance in the market just because it had produced various blockbuster movies in past and it had big name in the industry.

In view of above, the Commission was prima facie of the opinion that there was no contravention of the provision of the Act – AJAY DEVGN FILMS V. YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED [2012] 26 taxmann.com 350